The Artist

The Artist has the opportunity to alienate a lot of people before anyone even steps up to the ticket counter. The movie is done in black and white, it is mostly a silent movie, and there is little chance you will recognize either lead actor. While this may deter some people from seeing it I encourage you not to be one of them. The Artist is a beautifully crafted movie, and within a couple months may be declared the best movie of the year.

The Artist is a silent movie about the silent movie era. It follows two different careers and how they intersect while the industry transitions to the talkie era. These two actors could very well be right out of the 1920's. It stars Jean Dujardin as George Valentine, the king of Hollywood during the silent film era. After his most recent premiere he bumps into Peppy Miller played by Berenice Bejo. You may not know their names now, but I'm sure the Academy does, these two play to the era perfectly and look the part to boot. While on camera they are able to capture the era by hamming it up, but when the characters are alone they play down their parts. They display every thought perfectly to the audience, who needs words when you already know exactly what’s been said.

It isn't exactly a silent movie though, not only is there a scant bit of dialogue but there are also some perfectly placed sound effects to accentuate the moment. Also throughout the movie is a beautifully made soundtrack done by Ludovic Bource. While far more elaborate than any orchestra would play at the time; the score keeps a modern audience engaged throughout the many mood swings of the story. Listen closely and you may also hear pieces of Bernard Herrmann's score from Vertigo. Actually they pretty much lift the piece entirely, along with the breakfast table scene from Citizen Kane. No matter though, they fit the piece perfectly.

While all about the Hollywood era this isn't like one of the movies that the studios would look to crank out by Thursday. It looks more like an early French film than early Hollywood which would make sense because while it was shot in LA this is a French movie. Although you would never notice it as there are plenty of American actors and no French accents. The moments that give away the film’s origin are on screen in the director's artistic choices that very few American directors would even attempt. Contemporary directors would have a hard time getting support to make a silent, black and white film in this era. Making it all the more impressive that Michel Hazanavivius wrote and directed such a beautifully crafted film, in a 1.33 aspect ratio no less.

While careful to detail some aspects of the time the production crew are quick to abandon others. Gone are the soft focus close ups of the time, replaced with a clearer image more prevalent today. More important to the filmmakers are capturing the mood, energy, and emotional appeal. A direct tribute may have kept more people away; capturing moments using techniques from across the first half of the century will get more people inside the movie house. This isn't a movie done in the times, so much as a tribute to times gone by.

The movie has it all and captures almost every genre from comedy to melodrama to romance; it is as silly as it is serious. The plot is probably as predictable as any goodhearted movie of the era. Part of the charm of the movie is they are playing with old Hollywood clichés especially in the first half. While it comes off as corny at times we allow this trespass to occur because despite knowing what is coming we want to see how.

The technique of The Artist is grand but it is the performances of the artists that capture the audience. Every look and movement by these two actors brings to life an era that reflects a modern life of things constantly being left behind. They are able to be cheesy when showing off for the camera, but also capture a soft sincere look that will melt your heart. This is a beautifully done movie that will have you smiling long after you leave the theater. A

War Horse

While talking to my friend about War Horse, he told me that he initially thought there was some deeper meaning to the title; it wasn’t until later that he found out that the movie is literally about a horse in a war. Any kind of serious discussion about the movie from that point on was impossible. This makes the review all that more difficult to write because Steven Spielberg takes his story very seriously. You know the one about a horse, in a war.

Steven Spielberg takes us back to just before the start to The Great War. It opens on a young Albert Narracott, played by newcomer Jeremy Irvine, who takes his first look at the pony which he will one day own named Joey. The beginning 45-minutes of the movie not only set up the bond between the horse and his owner but set the tone of being over romanticized and overly-dramatic. With sweeping landscapes and a beautiful setting it is tough not to be taken in by the beauty of the movie. The music though is too on the nose to be taken completely seriously. John Williams, who composes the score, goes full throttle trying to bring the weepies out of the viewing audience. The sentiment these two frequent partners in crime are trying to get off is clear, it is never more noticeable than this segment of the film but the tone carries on the rest of the way.

The story has now been told through the written word, on stage, and now takes to the screen. This may be hard to understand but of the three versions, the one with a real horse may be the least believable. The story comes from the 1982 novel where the horse is the narrator of the story. It then took to the stage where it won a TONY for best play by using wonderfully crafted puppetry reminiscent of what “The Lion King” has been doing in front of packed houses for over a decade now. Spielberg decided to use a real animal and let the people around him do the narration and allow the horse to be perceived as it normally would be. The animal truly is beautiful and after viewing the movie, it is impressive just what they were able to train this animal to do. But one thing it can’t give you is a reaction shot as the horse is just going to look at the camera no matter how many close-ups of its face you give it, and there were a lot. In the other two mediums there was a level of mysticism behind the story telling because the animal wasn’t real so you allowed yourself to be taken away by the emotional plight of the character. Here it looks almost like they are trying to make up for what they lost by being over-romanticized and the outcome just makes it look cheesy.

Once the actual war begins the director creates more genuine moment. One of the most memorable come from the horse’s war time owner Captain Nicholls played by Tom Hiddleston as we witness first hand one of the most notable moments in wartime history in the transition of fighting styles to automatic weapons. One other moment comes towards the end of the movie; feel free to jump to the next paragraph as there are SPOILERS AHEAD. But not really as this is the moment before the climax of the film, I’ll do my best to be vague. It features two soldiers coming out of their respective trenches to aid the horse which was stuck in barbed wire in no man’s land. While coming off initially corny I appreciate the filmmaker referencing a little known moment in history called the Christmas Truce that took place across the Western Front between the warring sides. It is no surprise that Spielberg is able to properly capture these moments of war as he has had so much experience in the past creating them.

One of the most talented filmmakers of our time, Speirberg takes his expertise in both action packed war movies and childhood films and is able to create quite the hybrid that is getting a lot of award talk. The accolades the movie has received may be more attributed to the source material, the timing, and the man behind the project than the film itself. He does create a movie that can be viewed by audiences of all ages and that is something rarely seen in movie making anymore. B-

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

It has been tough to escape the Millennium trilogy for the past three years. Author Stieg Larsson left his trilogy unpublished, it wasn’t until after his death that the books hit the shelves and became a worldwide phenomenon. It then became a movie made in Sweden which did not shine away from the darker parts of the story with European audiences unafraid to deal with such issues. When trying to make an American version of the film the studios called on none other than David Fincher who previously worked on Se7en and Zodiac. With an expertise in sadistic storytelling Fincher gives his telling of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo an American touch.

In case you were unaware that David Fincher was directing the movie, the opening sequence should give it away. Two bodies cased in oil and covered in flame become one with Trent Rezner’s cover of "The Immigrant Song", the story hasn’t even started yet and his style comes screaming at you already. The concept behind this project plays perfectly into what Fincher is known for and is truly a perfect pairing. While there is little he can add to the overall story in fear of alienating fans, his biggest addition to the film is a glossy touch. For fans of the book and the Swedish movie, available on Netflix streaming, some of you may be surprised what he kept in the movie if you were anything like me who believed the American version was going to be softer. Fincher is still able to soften up the material through with some deadpan delivery from his leading lady. It is tough to tell whether some of the laughs were intended or accidental considering what’s going on.

Past the opening sequence, and for those of you unaware the movie opens on Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, leaving the courtroom having just been convicted of libel after going after the head of a major corporation. He probably should not have gone to print with material from one anonymous source. Either way with free time after stepping down from his magazine he accepts a job to investigate a 40-year-old murder of a young girl. While this is going on a brash young female rolls into the parking lot on her motorcycle, hair dyed black and still in a mohawk once she removes the helmet. Lisbeth Salander played by Rooney Mara has just completed her own investigation through different means, which some may call illegal, but now finds herself in trouble in her personal life. With the two different characters come the two completely different style of story, until the midway point where their paths cross and Fincher combines the tones into the one main arc. They almost seem as they could be two different movies, once they converge on each other Fincher allows the two to blend together till they are on the same beat.

Fincher takes his time before our two leads meet. Mikael Blomkvist’s story seems pretty straightforward, and he allows Craig to insert his confidence into the role, a confidence not seen in the original. The other half of the story dwells on the darker side. The character starts off visually assaulting, she seems so detached and soft spoken, isolated from the world. It isn’t till we see her investigative prowess where she shows off her skills and fortitude that the audience starts rooting for her. Larsson delves deep into the past and shows what made Lisbeth this way, and continues to do so throughout the story. Noomi Rapace injected herself into Lisbeth, succumbing to the psychosis of the character and entrenching herself in the darkness. Mara allows some light to shine through; her depiction of the character has a confidence to her as well. Not like Craig, who always has a swagger about him, Mara shows her confidence by playing Lisbeth as comfortable in her own skin. Mara doesn’t possess the same dark strength as the Swedish version. No doubt this is the studio telling her to play the psychosis down fearing they may alienate the audience. That darkness is what made Rapace’s portrayal of the character so mesmerizing in the original trilogy and will definitely be seen as lacking by fans of the material.

To not know about this story before this movie comes out probably means you avoided beaches, any major mode of transportation, or friends who enjoy holding it over your head that they actually read in their spare time. For some this may be the third time in the past three years to see a different take on one story. The source material is so strong that there is little doubt that this movie won’t be a success. To attach big names like David Fincher and Daniel Craig to the project only injects more confidence into the film. A confidence that definitely lacked in the Swedish movie, but don’t mistake that as positive. You don’t necessarily want a superhero or a glossy touch when dealing with gruesome murder. Mikael Nyqvist played the lead more straight on with little nuance to the role, but would a reporter really know how to handle torture as well as a James Bond would?

It is tough to not compare the book or the first movie to this new one considering how quickly all three were released. This movie stands well on its own and does a loyal retelling of the book through most of the movie. And short of adding a little gloss to the movie and taking away subtitles the shots aren’t all that different from the Swedish version. There is a lot to like about this movie, but that has more to do with the story than any changes that took place in this version. While it may not have needed a glossy touch, or a retelling as the original movie was done so well. If this is what it takes to get more people to see this story than they put together quite a team to execute with a gripping finished product. B+

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

It was two years ago when Guy Ritchie debuted his take of the famous detective from Baker Street. From the outset it enraged traditionalist fans who did not want Sherlock Holmes to be a gritty street fighter. It was fun to watch as any blockbuster should be and Robert Downey Jr. was in the middle of his resurgence. Since that time Downey has become an A-lister while the original movie grossed $524 million dollars worldwide. So while certainly not a great movie it put butts in the seats and while I thought the franchise would be left for dead with Holmes greatest nemesis waiting in the wings the crew had another chance at the 19th century detective. With more confidence Guy Ritchie returns with Robert Downey and Jude Law to create a much stronger story sure to be enjoyed by many fans this holiday season.

We are several years removed from the original story and Sherlock Holmes is trying to unravel his biggest case to date. He has already thwarted the plans of a master criminal several times, but what all these crimes are building up to is impossible for our hero to deduce. Meanwhile his loyal sidekick John Watson is getting married and moving on beyond this life of danger. Holmes convinces his old partner to help thwart his most worthy adversary in one final adventure.

It is worth noting that while Professor James Moriarty is the villain most notably linked with Sherlock Holmes he only appeared in Sir Author Conan Doyle's last story. Conan Doyle wanted to create a formidable opponent for Holmes to end on so he featured a brilliant scholar who could match wits with the detective. 'The Final Problem' became one of the most famous stories and is why Moriarty is as much a part of Holmes lore as Watson is. In a world of sequels it is easy to tell why Ritchie would save Holmes' most famed nemesis for later.

That being said Jared Harris was an odd choice for the great mastermind. For such a major threat they have chosen a relatively small actor, one that comes nowhere near the level of Robert Downey Jr. It is tough to believe the two characters are equal when the performances are not. Harris has full control over the intellectual portion of the character as exemplified in his work from 'Mad Men' he just doesn't seem believable as an imposing threat. It would have been wonderful to see what an Alan Rickman-esque actor could have done with the character he seems to have the perfect combination of controlled anger at his disposal. Similarly Noomi Rapace does little as our heroes' gypsy ally. Short of her opening action sequence she seldom helps develop the protagonist or the plot. It makes you miss Rachel McAdams as the prominent female lead who did little to nothing extraordinary in the first one except look stunning.

The story though bears its success on the shoulders of our hero and as can be expected Robert Downey Jr. once again does a fantastic job as the movie titular character. He was one of the few bright spots from the original and here he does more of the same with a darker twist to the character reflecting the raised stakes. The character is constantly banged up as his tweaks seem to not only reflect his thought process but the danger he finds himself in. His delivery builds upon the originals strengths as he is quick to lay out a subtle jab. Whether it is a physical or verbal one he does so in prefect deadpan form. Just as important to the character's delivery is his relationship with his lifelong friend John Watson once again played by Jude Law. Still a thankless role as Downey will surely outshine him, if not for the set-up and report provided by Law's portrayal of the character it stands to reason that much of the energy in the movie would fizzle. In the first movie most of their relationship was shown through an angry reluctance, there for each other because their bonds had been built over time. In the second story the relationship seems much more reflective as each understands their partnership is coming to an end. Their bond drives a large part of the movie; it helps to heighten the action sequences and is the main source of entertainment through the down beats as well.

Guy Ritchie seems much more comfortable directing this time, while he still uses most of the techniques that cluttered his first attempt he seems more restrained and allows his style to help tell his story rather than using it to gloss over unpolished sequences. The most notable technique being when Holmes slows down the action to predict his enemies attacks. It was used more for the character last time, here Ritchie uses this sequence and the outcome to provide perspective to the story. The action scenes benefit the most from Ritchie’s first crack at the story while the music of Hans Zimmer really highlight what is going on. The bachelor party, the scene on the train, and the climax all become exponentially more exciting than the action beats from the original. In the same breath though the scenes in between the action tend to drag a little bit and while the two leads do all they can to liven up the scenes it still seems like it takes a while to get to each major plot point.

There are those will argue that this is just another typical Hollywood sequel with more action and less substance. While you can certainly argue the former, the latter seems unfounded. The first movie had no intention of being taken seriously, merely meant to entertain, A Game of Shadows seems much more entertaining than the original in a large part due to the return of the two male leads and the director working hard together to improve their story. As long as you allow yourself to go into the movie with the expectations set from the first movie in the series and not the original stories you should be able to enjoy the movie. It is very much the same type of movie just done a little better. B-

New Year's Eve

From the same people who brought you Valentine's Day, just in case you couldn't tell, Gerry Marshall takes another holiday that is always completely blown out of proportion, slaps together a bunch of A-listers, and creates as many shallow characters with inconsequential plot lines as possible and calls it New Year's Eve. It is the exact same movie.

Want any more proof that this is the exact same movie; they cast some of the same actors and just gave them different names. That's right we are led to believe that in this universe where everyone is three degrees away from everyone else on holidays there are two people who look exactly like Ashton Kutcher and Jessica Biel on both sides of the country. Didn't you learn your lesson from the first movie; I know you didn't do it for the money because Chuck Lorre and CBS are literally throwing money at Ashton to keep their sitcom alive. Maybe it is just a fun movie to do and I assume the schedule is super flexible because they only need you for like two weeks of shooting.

We could go over all of the plot lines but added up I doubt any story gets more than twenty minutes of screen time so there is no way to make any kind of connection to the story which is probably for the better. All of the clichés you can imagine make it into the movie people get stuck in an elevator, running into an ex, first kisses, bucket lists and obviously the New Year’s Ball breaks and there is concern it may not drop on time. It doesn't really matter who stars in which role as you can just throw in any actor to be any character, as they did with Hallie Berry, it is that nondescript. Some of the more ridiculous moments feature a dying Robert De Niro trying to get to the roof of the hospital and Hilary Swank talking on National News about being nicer to people or some shit.

The movie studio involved is Warner Brothers who take a laughable amount of screen time to pimp out their next movie Sherlock Holmes which comes out next week. This movie is also brought to you by the fine people of Nivea. Nivea: Touch and Be Touched. As you can see their product placing skills even made it into my review, well done.

The best part of the movie was the ending, not only because you could finally leave but because there are some actually genuine moments in the outtakes where the actors were allowed to have a little fun on screen. This is the attitude and style the movie should have been made in, not whatever was happening on the screen.

There really is no reason to see this movie, for those of you that saw the first one in theaters you should still be shaking your head at that decision. At its absolute best the movie is hokey and at its worst it is laughably trite. I would say it is a bigger let down than the actual holiday but there was no way the expectations were all that high. F

A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas

To really enjoy A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas might I suggest one of two things. Go in feeling the Christmas spirit or go in extremely high. While not necessarily requirements to enjoy the movie it will no doubt make the experience a better one. The franchise that started at White Castle has grown up and has lost a step or two. Harold and Kumar return to their drug induced states for their Christmas movie and you just might want to do the same.

It’s not that the movie isn't funny, it's just not all that hilarious but I believe that may be because I didn't see this 3D movie, the way it was intended to be seen, high. I saw it in 3D and there are all kinds of things flying at you from smoke to show to confetti to cocaine. At one point they may actually throw a kitchen sink at the audience. While they acknowledge that the whole 3D thing has "jumped the shark" it doesn't stop them from doing it, which may actually be worse. But there are also bright lights and clay-mation at work which would leave any stoned mind enchanted. Plus all the bright lights may keep you distracted from the writing.

The creative team behind the movie look to offend every minority out there, but my objection isn't the ethnic bashing it’s the lack of laughs. Once again this may all depend on your state of mind, you may be laughing out loud throughout the whole movie, or only chuckling a few times. Most of these laughs are in the first half of the movie, and if you are anything like me you may look at the clock and be unable to believe the movie was 90 minutes when it felt like two hours.

The success of the movie though is entirely in the hands of aging stoners Harold and Kumar played by John Cho and Kal Penn respectively. The plot of the movie revolves around Harold growing up and becoming a member of Wall Street while Kumar has stayed stagnant and remains baked in his bachelor pad. They have drifted apart since escaping from Guantanamo Bay but a mysterious package has brought them together. This plot seems fitting as these two actors seem to have outgrown the roles that launched them to stardom. Both have moved onto more serious work and now seem a step behind if not a little pathetic being in their mid thirties and still acting like this. The actors still have their charm though and have much more convincing delivery than the first movie but they still just seem out of place and the roles just don't come as easily as they did seven years ago.

Brief encounters take place by all sorts of co-stars and may be the best parts of the movie. Patton Oswald plays Santa, Danny Trejo plays Harold's father in law, Eddie Kaye Thomas and David Krumholtz return as their stoner buddies and of course NPH rises from the dead to play Neil Patrick Harris which helped to re-start his career. All these roles add to the movie and they are in and out just in time for each actor to grab a couple laughs.

The movie is funny; the actors are good there just isn’t anything spectacular or innovative about the third movie in the series. There is plenty of spirit to the movie along with nods to holiday movies of the past, which is why those who love the season may love this movie as well. But bear in mind lovers of eggnog, there are also a bunch of penis shots as well. While I can’t prove that they were injecting marijuana smoke into the theater I do know I bought an entire pizza afterwards. C

In Time

The movie begins with a decent enough premises for the sci-fi universe and definitely has enough potential to feel like it could be something special. It was written and directed by Andrew Niccol who also wrote Gattaca and The Truman Show so the man is no stranger to the bizarre. Niccol’s future enjoys a very glossy look with a vintage touch; he has also envisioned a future full of attractive people. It is all very fitting because In Time concerns itself more with style than substance because it offers very little beyond a cool concept.

In Time takes place in what is supposed to be a very near future, yet in this very near future somehow a few rich elite have convinced the world to shift the currency from money to time. None of this is explained mind you, how or why it happened, or how they were able to attach a glowing clock to everyone’s arm. If you are able to get past that, all you need to understand is everything is now charged in time from 4 minutes for a cup of coffee to 2 months from a hotel suite. There is still a significant difference between the rich who have the potential to live for eons and the poor who only have enough time to survive day by day.

The plot devices and situations are set clearly and are easy enough to understand that you can look past the unmentioned history, which a sci-fi is never obligated to explain instead just hope the audience can accept it and move on. The best thing Niccol does is lay the premise on thick, his problem though is that he lays everything on thick. There are so many different time puns that if I were to write them all out I don’t think I would be able to finish the review In Time. See what I did there, and if you found that annoying than get ready because this movie is stocked full of them for two hours. While the beginning of the movie is laid out very clearly it loses the momentum it may have garnered in the first half hour and loses any sense of pacing or tension. They have people running for their lives, watching their clocks tick down to zero and still it is tough to feel anything for the characters.

The lack of connection may be due to the delivery more than the writing. Justin Timberlake takes his first shot at headlining an action movie. He plays Will, who lives in the ghetto but after inheriting over a century looks to move up in the world. He plays the part just fine but he still seems too cool to be considered any kind of a bad ass or credible action hero. Amanda Seyfried plays the love interest that falls for the boy from the other side of the tracks. Niccol knows she brings very little to the part which may be why he wrote in scenes for skinny dipping and strip poker. One would expect that Pete Camball would be good at playing a little slime ball executive, but for some reason he just comes off as bland, his character on Mad Men must really benefit from Matthew Weiner’s writing. The only character who gives a convincing performance is Cillian Murphy who you may recognize from various Christopher Nolan movies. He plays a time cop who looks to uphold the society they live in and stays hot on Will’s trail.

The message is laid on extremely thickly. There will be little need to convince anyone who is seeing this movie that there is something wrong with the current situation, and seems more topical than ever with the events taking place in Oakland and Occupy Wall Street. But this movie hurts the very cause they are trying to acknowledge by stealing ten to fifteen dollars from the poor and handing that money over to wealthy movie studios. Seeing this movie is a waste of your time. D

Like Crazy

The movie opens on a young couple beginning their relationship. After their first date he goes to leave her apartment and places his hand on the door, she does likewise as if the artist is attempting to say there will always be something that comes between their love. It becomes immediately obvious at this point that these two people are going to be one of those insufferable couples that everyone else hates. Nailed it. Like Crazy explores the trapping and difficulties involved with a long distance relationship and shows just how annoying watching a couple explore personal moments in public can be for everyone else.

While I did not like the movie that is not to say everyone will hate it. I’m sure there are many people in the audience who will connect with the movie whether they are currently in a long distance relationship, part of a new relationship, just getting out of a relationship, etc. Director Drake Doremus shows an honest and personal look inside almost any relationship from the cutesy moments to the bickering. The reason these moments are so personal is because no one else wants to see it. He shows his two leads being overly affectionate and annoyingly cutesy just as often as he shows the couple fighting in public. As anyone who has seen couples fight, it is an uncomfortable experience that you just hope ends without being dragged into it. Why would you want to pay for an experience that in real life you see almost any Friday night and try desperately to look away from?

The problems begin to stack up after Anna allows her student visa to expire, despite everyone telling her if she left for the summer it would be much easier to gain entry back into the country she decides to forgo that in order to spend a couple extra nights just laying in bed. It seems that most of their problems could be solved with a skype account and a couple extra plane tickets which they can obviously afford since Jacob graduated to become an instant success as a furniture designer and they can afford to make international calls on their cell phones. Many of you may respond that this is young love and everyone makes stupid mistakes at this age or without these problems there probably wouldn’t be a movie. That is all fine and well but it doesn’t mean we need to feel bad for them either. The main characters are completely unsympathetic and get everything they deserve. Besides being completely insufferable to watch they are also quick to betray each other’s trust. The most sympathetic character is Sam played by Jennifer Lawrence whose biggest fault is that she keeps falling for Jacob who keeps ditching her every time Anna becomes available. Which begs the question what is he bringing to the table that he is able to bag two girls like this, is building furniture a really sexy occupation and no one told me? If that is the case well then I have a table from Ikea that I can put together for all the ladies out there. Lawrence is without question the biggest talent in the movie and her performance is mostly tossed to the side in order to show Jacob and Anna in more montages. In fact all of the supporting actors excel in their effort to prop up their leads and are far more likeable characters; from Anna’s whiskey loving parents played by Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead to both of their ex’s played by Lawrence and Charlie Bewley.

It is tough to tell how much time passes between each fight but it doesn’t matter, Doremus feels it is more important to show the major moments than showing the timeline of the events and I won’t disagree. In fact Doremus made a lot of stylistic choices throughout the movie whether they match with his artistic vision or due to cost restraints it is tough to tell. They all help the story and help to give an intimate look into the relationship. He provides small moments that any audience member can connect to such as waiting for a reply from a text or sending more than one text in a neurotic hope that you’re special someone isn’t dodging you.

Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones churn out very strong performances, especially considering most of the dialogue was improvised. They really show just how frustrating young love can be, which turns out to be the main reason why this movie is hard to watch. It is just tough to get past how maddening it was to watch these two make up and break up over the smallest trivialities. Where are these character’s friends to tell them to stay away from each other. I imagine they alienated any friends they may have had by being awful to be around.

Without sympathetic lead characters or living in a similar situation it is going to be tough to like this movie. I do suggest that if you are a couple that likes to argue in front of people I think you should see this movie, in order for you to understand how we all feel. D+

Trespass

It is tough to believe that Nicolas Cage's money problems are still this bad. It really is a shame that an Academy Award winning actor now has to do movies like this. But what I can't figure out is why Nicole Kidman is involved. This is a movie that at one point had discussions of going directly to DVD, but due to some big names got a theatrical debut. For whatever the reason Joel Schumacher, who always seems to direct movies this bad yet still get some kind of box office, strikes again as he makes his attempt at the recent brash of home invasion movies.

Allow me to save you some time and tell you Cage plays a diamond investor looking to make a big score for his family who feels alienated from him. Meanwhile thieves bust into his house and want the money and the stones. From there as one can expect Cage loses his shit and refuses to go along with their plan. Then the threats from the thieves come pouring in, making all sorts of demands to get a big pay day. The last two steps repeat themselves for the next HOUR. Literally no difference: Do this or I will kill that, then Cage refuses and the process repeats itself.

I'm sure someone thought to themselves, how are we going to keep raising the tension in this scene? Rather than any character exploration or originality they choose to just move the gun around to different people. For those of you interested in how the writing meetings went my crack detective team was able to record a meeting before a shoot: "Who haven't we threatened yet? We already did all three, well how about we have the thieves threaten each other? We did that too? Fine what’s the running time? We still need 20 more minutes? Damn it! Well threaten them all again but this time with a knife, I'm calling it a day." So with legitimate tension clearly gone from the script the camera man does his best to move the camera back and forth really quickly, I applaud your attempt sir. They also kept trying to insert plot twists throughout the movie, but they aren't twists so much as a step by step following of how every movie like this is done.

By the end of the movie people in my screening were actually laughing about what was going on. This is a great movie if you want something completely over the top and melodramatic and need to turn your brain off for about 90 minutes; you just need to ask yourself if that is worth ten bucks. If all you need is an over the top laughs save your money for your convenience I have posted a video of The Wicker Man below, it has been condensed to its shortest and funniest format which is how I wish Trespass was edited. D-

50/50

Whenever dealing with heavy themes, it is always important to find a balance to the material. No one in Hollywood is afraid to laugh about terminal illness anymore, but too many laughs and you risk creating an uncomfortable audience, too few and you risk being a Hallmark television movie of the week. Will Reiser is able to take a frightening part of his life and keep the audience smiling while sharing his heartfelt story of survival. 50/50 is a perfect balance of humor and heart to create a terrific story.

Let me start though with the tagline of the movie "It takes a pair to beat the odds," it's just awful. There is so much more to this movie than just two buddies looking to support each other. In fact there is a great ensemble here that helps convey the story’s message. I understand why the tag line exists; it is to let people know that there are two very popular male leads in the story. But this isn't a movie you are going to want to roll into anyway to forget about life for a while, the featured lead has cancer after all, and while there is plenty of humor behind the story the character still has a 50 percent survival rate, and the movie does not shy away from the emotional moments that come with such a diagnosis.

The movie stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Adam, who has just been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of cancer. And to no one’s surprise he plays the role superbly. He goes through the whole range of emotions almost effortlessly yet seems strained while doing it. The strain of course seems natural from a person who can see his own demise. Without the help of Seth Rogan, the performance may have leaned too far towards the depressing. Instead Rogan, who was a producer on the movie, balances out the story with laughs as Adam's best friend Kyle. In the third act though he is able to dig a little deeper into his character and shows why he is so easily likable by audiences despite his usual crassness.

The reason that Rogan does so well though is that he is part of the story that the movie is based on. The movie was written by Will Reiser who worked with Rogan on "Da Ali G Show" which is when he found out he had a serious form of cancer. The first draft of the script which was called "How I Learned Nothing from Cancer" I imagine lacked some of the more heartfelt moments that Gordon-Levitt was able to portray. But Reiser worked with Rogan to reflect back on this period in their lives to examine what really happened from many different perspectives. The combination and reflection both men shared helped to shape the movie.

It wasn't just the men that helped to make a strong finished product, the females co-stars help to elevate the lead actor and sometimes even outshine him. The first woman we meet is Adam's girlfriend played by Bryce Dallas Howard. She is always being cast as the beautiful bitchy character, which she has been playing so well recently. I don't understand how she plays the character so well with her grandparents being the Cunninghams, I suppose good parenting skips a generation. The bigger part though belongs to Anna Kendrick who plays Adam's therapist; she also seems to be cast in similar roles as the young professional who is in over her head. She once again does fantastic in the role and I can't wait to see her more often as she is a great personality to play the love interest in any drama. Anjelica Huston shows her years of experience and is superb as an overbearing mother. Any young person in the audience can identify why Adam may find her annoying but when he finally lets his guard down she shows him the caring and love every mother has for their son; which in turn should make every son feel guilty for blowing them off.

The sadness never becomes unbearable. Sure it may be tough to get through the whole movie without a couple sniffles, especially for those who have been through something like this before. But just when you think all the drama has taken over the actors in the movie will do something unbearably charming and will bring a smile back to your face. Often times while watching a movie I will say to myself “right here” in a hope that the movie will end on a high note, I don’t think any movie has ever gotten so close to a perfect moment, which makes sense as this story is full of near perfect moments. A-

Money Ball

There is a tendency in Hollywood for their movies to have a deeper meaning. If a movie were just about zombies it may be tough to get a broad audience into the theater. So what people tend to do is add a metaphor like zombies that really stand for consumerism or lack of individuality or some B.S. like that. Or they will put in a handsome lead to attract women who may otherwise not want to see a monster movie. Moneyball has every opportunity to do these things as well and while it may touch upon these ideas this is a baseball movie about baseball stats. If you like baseball, hate the Yankees, or find mathematics interesting you'll probably like the movie. That is what the movie is about and while it has a David and Goliath feel with a charismatic Brad Pitt in the lead this is a baseball movie. And how could you hate America's Pastime?

A big contributing factor to the success of the movie is the writing team behind it. When the source material is a look at stats and analysis you need strong writing to engage the audience and that is what Steve Zallian brought to the original script. Once the script was finished they brought over Steven Soderbergh to make the film and he made several changes to the script including interviews and having the players play themselves despite the age difference, the studio was not a fan. So they took him off the project and instead brought in Bennett Miller who has worked on dry material before and squeezed Oscar juice from it with Capote. Once they found a director who would make a more traditional movie (rather ironic considering what the movie is about) they brought in Aaron Sorkin to complete a fianl draft of the script. Usually with too many chefs in the kitchen you create a mess, here it works out and while it seems scattered at times, especially the end, I believe it works to make a compelling story.

As for the story I found some objection to it and what they left out. For those of you who don't know what Moneyball is about, it is based on the true story of the Oakland A's during the early 2000's while their team was good despite the lack of resources (read: money)that teams like the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Soxs have. Billy Beane the A's GM and a former player who had been highly touted coming out of high school abandoned the old method of scouting based off looks and feel and subscribed to an anaylytical, subermetric approach to forming a team. In other words he wasn't looking at batting average and speed like other organizations he wanted player who could get on base and could hit for power. The formula was basically the need to get people on base and keep your opponent off. In the movie they focus on getting men on base but during their run they had three of the best pitchers in baseball on the mound in Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson which is arguably a bigger reason they won then the batters they were able to scrap together after Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon left. I understand why they were left out of the movie as they were already on the team and had nothing to do with Beane's negotiations and front office moves, but to completely dismiss them from a movie about why the A's were winning is a little ridiculous.

Obviously nerding out a little there, but besides that the movie is strong. Sorkin writes a script as you would expect with plenty of great dialogue. Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane perfectly in a mix of a confident businessman with plenty of self doubt. His character refuses to watch the games as he believes he is cursed. The need to win the last game of the season keeps his head churning and his confidence in check. Pitt is able to be a character that can walk into a room with a confident swagger then leave it with nothing but doubts and remorse in his eyes. They also choose to include his daughter in the story, in an attempt to humanize a man who needs to be vicious when cuts need to be made.

Beane's right hand man is Peter Brand who is based on Paul DePodesta and is played by Jonah Hill. Hill does fantastic opposite Pitt, and while known for his comedy is able to slow his performance down as a man who lacks the swagger that Beane has but believes that his system is right for the organization. He nails his deadpan delivery and is able to participate in a great give and take with the lead actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman also makes an appearance in the movie as a manager who still believes in the old way of doing things and often clashed with his GM. That dynamic could have been interesting to explore but I imagine that confrontation ended in real life once the team started winning. Chris Pratt also stars in the movie as former catcher and current first baseman Scott Hatteberg, Pratt is always all kinds of charming and he is no different in this movie.

There isn't a whole lot of baseball action in the movie as it is more about the front office moves but there is enough to wet your whistle. The scenes in which we actually do see baseball are shot in different manners almost every time we see it. But since this story is told from the perspective of the GM who doesn't watch the game we only get slivers of action. We also see different shooting techniques from when he is interacting with people to when he is alone which reflect his two states of mind. When he is with others they use normal shooting techniques but when alone, they show Beane's disjointed thoughts and constant questioning of his moves using quick cuts and close ups that help us to further get in the character's head.

Not everyone is going to like Moneyball, it moves slowly and there is not a lot of action to it. But the writing is compelling, the banter and interactions are funny, and the actors are all charming, plus it is a movie about baseball stuff. For all the reasons above I liked the movie, and even if you are not into baseball maybe you will like the movie as well. Much like the movie the producers were able to get the most talented people to play for their team and create a winning formula. A-

Emmy Predictions: Drama

So yesterday I did Comedy, today I'll try my best to predict the Drama categories.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama
Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire
Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Christine Baranski, The Good Wife
Margo Martindale, Justified
Michelle Forbes, The Killing
Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

With two women from the same show, they may be stealing votes from each other, so I don't like either actress from The Good Wife to win. While Kelly Macdonald flourished in a cast full of outstanding male actors Margo Martindale had the performance of her career. Either of these two women could win but I like the Justified actress to give Justified its first Emmy.


Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Josh Charles, The Good Wife
Alan Cummings, The Good Wife
Walton Goggins, Justified
John Slattery, Mad Men
Andrew Braugher, Men of a Certain Age

My heart of hearts wants Peter Dinklage to win for Game of Thrones (I'm still mad that Sean Bean didn't get nominated as a lead actor). The problem is he has some really stiff competition this year. Alan Cummings was outstanding on The Good Wife just as he was last year. John Slattery is terrific year after year, and for it keeps getting nominated year after year. And Walter Goggins is astonishing on Justified (let's face it that whole cast is great). While Slattery is due Alan Cummings had the better performance throughout the season so I think Cummings will win, but I'm still pulling for the honorable Lannister.


Outstanding Actress in a Drama
Kathy Bates, Harry's Law
Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights
Mireille Enos, The Killing
Mariska Hargitay, Law and Order: SVU
Juliana Margulies, The Good Wife
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

That's right, Harry's Law is still on TV. Oh man NBC is in a bad way. Anyway Juliana Margulies won the award last year, so don't be surprised if she wins again this year. The work is consistent and the show is just as good. But I would argue that Elisabeth Moss deserves the award more. As her character continues to grow and become the brains of the operation her talent becomes more visible. She is at her best when confronting Don and gives Jon Hamm a terrific partner in some of their scenes together. I would argue that Moss had the better year, I'd probably lose but I'd still be willing to put up the fight.


Outstanding Actor in a Drama
Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights
Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Hugh Laurie, House
Timothy Olyphant, Justified

With Breaking Bad not eligible this year because of the late debut that means someone new has to win. Last year all six men had a legitimate claim to the best actor award, this year it is just as difficult to pick whose performance deserve the award. Kyle Chandler should have been nominated earlier than last year as he is great on Friday Night Lights, and since the show is over with this would be a great way to wrap up his tenure. Jon Hamm has been deserving of the award for the past three years but Bryan Cranston has always been a little bit better. With this season of Mad Men being devoted to the question "Who is Don Draper?" it gave him the perfect platform to show off why this show has won best drama the past three years. Steve Buscemi may play the role of Cranston for Hamm this year. Much like Don Draper, Nucky Thompson is one of the main reasons that Boardwalk Empires is so successful. He is perfectly cast in the lead role and can definitely walk away with the trophy, but Hamm has had this coming for too long not to walk away with the statuette tonight. Don Draper for the win.


Outstanding Drama Series
Boardwalk Empire
Dexter
Friday Night Lights
Game of Thrones
The Good Wife
Mad Men

I don't care who wins the award, Game of Thrones was the best show of the year. It took a manuscript that was written in order to be unfilmable and knocked it out of the park. They made bold moves all season, the premiere included a zombies, rape, incest and the killing of a child and by the end not everyone made it out alive, and did things no other show has ever had the cojones to do. But they won't win, the award comes down to a low year for Mad Men and Boardwalk Empires which started strong but tailed off towards the end. But at its worst Mad Men is still a brilliant analysis of a man destined to fail. The writing is always fantastic, the costumes fitting and they know how to make everything look exceptional by this point. Matthew Weiner will win again and this will give Mad Men their fourth straight win in the category.

What do you guys think? Did I get it wrong? Who do you think is gonna win this year. Let me know. And enjoy the show.

Emmy Predictions: Comedy

For those of you that read this blog know I am a movie guy, but come award season I like to show that not only do I watch a lot of movies but I also watch a lot of television. I really need to get out more, but it’s too late for that so for now here are some of my best guesses for how this year's Emmy awards will be handed out. First we'll take a look at the comedy field.


Outstanding Variety, Comedy or Musical Series
The Colbert Report
Conan
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Late Night with Jimmy Fallon
Real Time with Bill Mahar
Saturday Night Live

This actually isn't in the comedy field but I think it deserves mentioning just because how impressive it is. Last year I wrote a hell of a piece about why The Daily Show would finally lose. And I stand by it for all of those reasons but to sum it up it wasn't their best year and Conan and Colbert were both ON. Stewart didn't even show up last year which means assumedly he had something more important than getting one of the highest honors for television; already knew what it felt like to win and didn't want to go; or maybe thought the competition was better and more deserving. Well he still won, and now I am convinced if he wasn't going to lose last year he certainly isn't going to lose this year. The Daily Show will win its ninth straight award in this field. How many more years do you think Colbert has before he just loses it and goes postal on his past employer.


Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy
Jane Lynch, Glee
Betty White, Hot in Cleveland
Julie Bowen, Modern Family
Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live
Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

This is a tough category to predict. Last year’s winner is this year’s Emmy host and I don’t even know how she is going to do with that, I hope well but it is tough to tell. Last year she was the clear cut winner for her negative slams and one liners, but to end season one they tried to show her evolution and make her a better person. So this season they had to split her time between glee club hater and being sympathetic. The character was at her best when she was mean and awful that is why she won, to give her a heart and redeem no longer makes her the best. While I don’t watch Hot in Cleveland never count out Betty White, she is cute as hell and still hits all her marks. On merit the best performance would have to be Jolie Bowen, she doesn’t get all the laughs but she helps to make all the people around her funnier.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy
Chris Colfer, Glee
Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family
Ed O’ Neil, Modern Family
Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family
Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Jon Cryer, Two and a Half Men

This is going to someone on Modern Family. Jon Cryer basically did a half season of work so how could he get the award, and Ryan Murphy took all the emotion and love that was in Kurt’s character from season one and instead made him a soapbox to send out his message. Any of the other four men could win it, putting Jesse Tyler Ferguson in a distant fourth. Eric Stonestreet won the award last year, but Ed O’Neil and Ty Burrell were better this season. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burrell won but Ed O’Neil is the heart of the series. He wins the award on his first nomination, an award that he deserves.



Outstanding Actress in a Comedy
Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Laura Linney, The Big C
Melissa McCarthy, Mike & Molly
Martha Plimpton, Raising Hope
Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Is Nurse Jackie a comedy? Do people laugh at that show? Getting past that, I have never enjoyed Raising Hope, so have a tough time pulling for Martha Plimpton. And while Melissa McCarthy was fantastic in the movies she has been good on Mike and Molly but not amazing.Amy Poehler has been fantastic on Parks and Rec. She leads a fantastic cast and shares the spotlight just as much as it shines on herself. She is the one I believe will win, but this is a tough category to predict and may face difficult competition from Laura Linney who not only manages to be funny but in a show that deals with cancer can also be very touching and Emmy voters love that mix.


Outstanding Actor in a Comedy
Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
Louis C.K., Louie
Steve Carrell, The Office
Johnny Gelecki, The Big Bang Theory
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

This may be the biggest lock of the night. There is no chance that Steve Carrell doesn't walk away with this award. That is not to say that he necessarily deserves it for his work this past season. The award would be given to him for the sum of his work over the past seven seasons on the office and his past six nominations. For all of that, mostly the first three seasons and a little bit for seasons four and five, he will win the award. While Carrell deserves it for all that he has done, Louis C.K. has been hilarious all season, watch the masturbation episode and tell me he’s not funniest actor on television right now.


Outstanding Comedy Series
The Big Bang Theory
Glee
Modern Family
The Office
Parks and Recreation
30 Rock


Does Modern Family have what it takes to become the next 30 Rock, well 30 Rock certainly doesn’t. The show is still smart but for the past two years I have enjoyed the first half of NBC’s Thursday line up more than the second half. To that point Parks and Recreation had a fantastic season. While it was upsetting to not get a fall debut last year, by getting pushed back to the spring it allowed the creative staff to fine tune some of the earlier episodes which only made it funnier. Of the nominees this was the funniest show of the year, and I would be willing to wager that this may be the high point for the series because of the extra time they were allotted. The best show of the year though would probably still be Modern Family. The actors on the show are phenomenal as evident by all of the adults being nominated for acting awards. The jokes are good; there are countless laugh out loud moments but the difference may be the rather clichéd ending where the lone voice over tries to wrap everything up into a neat package. The reason this trick has become so clichéd is because it is effective at doing what they need, and that is tying the episode up. The show’s heart and the love the characters have for each other is what give Modern Family the edge.

Drive

Ryan Gosling is capable of almost anything, and has left little doubt that he is one of the brightest stars in Hollywood. He has can play the heartthrob and romantic like in The Notebook, he can be a heart breaker like in Blue Valentine, he can be funny and charming like in Crazy, Stupid, Love. In the last movie mentioned he stepped out of his comfort zone and tried a comedy. He is often very adventurous in his roles and always knocks then out of the park. In Drive he seems to take a step back in to what he knows and while he does well in the role I doubt this will be a role worth remembering.

For director Nicolas Winding Refn this is his first stab at American film making. He has been very popular in Europe and has shown a knack for making movies, but of his movies that I have seen they have all been very stylistic. There are those who praise his style and concepts as high art and enjoy his projects for it. In Drive he appears to be making an ode to the eighties be it the font on the movie poster and credits, the music, or the white jacket our protagonist wears throughout the story. He obviously is very knowledgeable on the era and creates a wonderful atmosphere. But he always seems to over commit to it. Alright Don, we get the image you are going for but sometimes it seems that you are more concerned with style over substance. Some people will praise his work, and with a 13 million dollar budget maybe the only thing he could afford was an eighties looking B movie. It was a fun style but sometimes, much like in Bronson it overwhelmed the story.

The story is good though, it features Ryan Gosling in the lead role as a man who works as a mechanic and a stunt driver and also moonlights as a getaway driver. In the opening monologue he lays down the rules. He gives them 5 minutes to do whatever they want, outside of that they are on their own. With a hero that dabbles on the other side of the law he must hold a strict moral code on what he is willing to do in order for the audience to side with him. It also helps that the hero seems to epitomize cool. In order to prepare for the role Gosling rebuilt the 1973 Chevy Malibu that his character drives in the movie. The writers also do their best to help the audience connect with the character. He only speaks when it is absolutely necessary. This type of writing is rarely seen anymore, more often opting for dialogue that expresses what our characters think. Here the actors express themselves, rather than verbalize their thoughts.

There are a slew of actors who help to get Gosling's point across and help to define him and his actions. A plethora of television actors make brief appearances in the movie for some defining moments to our other actors including Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks. One of the most surprising performances though belongs to Albert Brooks. I can't remember the last performance I liked of his, not counting voicing a fish looking for his son and a billionaire trying to take over the world. He brings a cool calm and trusted performance to the movie that really accentuates his character. Gosling's romantic opposite is played by up and coming A-list actress Carey Mulligan, whose talent seems to go wasted. She is asked to do little for her own character and instead only to move plot and provide support to Gosling. This is something rarely seen anymore either, a supporting actress actually there solely for the support of the main actor. But as the female lead and boasting such a talent it is a shame to see Mulligan’s go to waste in a movie that asks her to do very little.

Mulligan's biggest contribution may be that she brings to the movie what many in the audience may already be expecting. There are very few times Gosling has not been involved with a romantic counterpart, so for the females in the audience she brings some of that to the story. But really any expression of love in the movie is there to accentuate the violence willing to be done for it. For the guys in the audience there is no shortage of blood. It takes a violent turn during the second half. It is almost shocking how violent they go, but maybe even worse it is sometimes laughable how bloody some of the scenes get. Also shocking is despite the movie being called Drive just how little our main character spends behind the wheel. I understand not wanting to be lumped into the same genre as The Fast and the Furious, but there is really only one good driving sequence which I can't help but feel was inserted in at the producer's request to increase the action pacing a bit.

The movie is fun, but it just gives off the impression that it is trying too hard. The movie really wants to fit into a certain genre and be a certain style. It wants to be an art house movie and an action movie and I don't know if the two blend well together. Some people are going to love it, a lot of blood a lot of action why wouldn't they, but for me the need to be artistic as well as bloody made it too ridiculous. For some people that is exactly what they are going to want. If you want an eighties movie with a hero the likes of an Eastwood then you should enjoy this movie. I enjoyed it, but it took me a long time to really formulate any kind of opinion on it which usually means that the movie is good but certainly not a must see. B-

Warrior

Oooh and Aaahs rang out across the theater during almost every fight seen. The audience cheered and applauded during all the high points of the movie, and had I turned around I'm sure there would have been some grown men fighting to hold back the tears. The movie hits on all the right points and is an impressive piece of work.

The first thing you need to do as soon as you walk into the theater is suspend possibility over some of the events that take place. Suspend the fact that two nobodies could just walk into a 16-man tournament with a grand prize of 5 million dollars. While one brother enters as an internet sensation which doesn't usually work out, the other is a late minute addition because a trainer put in a good word. Once you ignore that people can just enter hugely marketed tournaments rather than finding other more proven fighters you'll be able to enjoy the movie a little more.

The movie opens on Tommy played by Tom Hardy showing up at his father's door after a 14 year absence. His brother Brendan played by Joel Edgerton lives by Philadelphia and is now a teacher raising a family with his high school sweetheart. All three men have not said a word to each other for years, in a backstory that slowly reveals itself during the course of the movie. They do not force the details to come out but rather they reveal themselves naturally, which is a credit to the writing staff. Some information though must be inferred as a family, with what one can assume is a dark past, would probably not vocalize their problems in a casual confrontation. It adds to a realism behind the family dynamic and allows the mind to wander on just what this father, played by Nick Nolte, did to his family that led to all this. Also leading to the realism is the striking similarities between Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy, I'd be lying if I said I didn't confuse the two actors during the first half of the story, they really do look like brothers.

The first half of the movie is full of family dynamic minced in with a sliver of MMA fighting, just enough to keep your interest until the second half which is full of MMA fighting mixed in with the loose ends of the story. The choreography and camera work reels you into the cage. Despite knowing how the movie ends up, having seen movies like this before and the trailers that actually tell you, you find yourself bobbing and weaving gripped to the edge of your seat for the outcome of the fight. That is not to say the fighting was the only good part of the movie, quite the contrary the story is gripping and filled with dark realism that will attract the audience to the story and force them to care about the outcome.

Gavin O'Connor not only directs the film but is also the movie's producer and writer. With a lot at stake he does not disappoint. His past work in Miracle and to a lesser extent Pride and Glory no doubt helped him craft his story properly with a mixture of sports and family ties that are motifs in his other movies as well. He spends a lot of his time and effort around his characters giving equal time and sympathy to each brother. From the director's chair he is able to get the most out of all of his male leads and his supporting cast.

Hardy is a beast in the movie and looks like he is always ready to pounce or go postal on anyone who would dare enter a ring with him. His persona reminds me of Goldberg for all my wrestling fans out there. He is impossible not to like inside the ring, outside he keeps everything bottled up and it impressed me that Hardy could capture the persona of man like this. He churns out a nuanced performance filled with gaffes and ticks that may look out of place, but that is an accurate portrayal of a man afraid to reveal himself. While Hardy is a dark and brooding figure, he plays the perfect counterbalance to Edgerton's family focused Brendan. Brendan is more methodical and thoughtful character, and it is easier to understand his wants and needs. While you'll root for Tommy because he is a bad ass, you'll want to support Brendan because he's a good guy and deserves something to go his way. Past his prime, the physics teacher relies on skill and technique while Hardy is all power and fury. It is a credit to O'Connor and the male leads that they are able to capture the two men's personality and personify them in their fighting styles. Both characters are well developed and provide powerful performances that help to create an emotional connection.

Nolte's character is desperately seeking the forgiveness from his two sons for his past sins. Nolte is fantastic as a recovering alcoholic looking for a second chance, a perfect casting choice he no doubt is able to pull demons from his own past to inspire a man so desperate for redemption but unable to find it. Providing some level headedness to the family cohesion is Brendan's trainer played by Frank Gillo and Brendan's wife played by the beautiful Jenifer Morrison. While not nearly as flashy it shows where his support and levelheadedness comes from along with putting a face to what he fights for.

It is not just the story that keeps you interested in all the fights; it is the fights themselves as well. They are brilliantly choreographed and cut. The camera angles dart all over the place; this is really a credit to the editors who put the shots together. The shots are used perfectly to capture the emotion of the fight with plenty of close ups to feel like you are inside the cage. The stakes seemed raised and the emotional toll is high.

The hard work and consideration are impressive during both halves of the movie. The dreary scenes in Philadelphia compel you to care about the stakes laid out for the second half. The story and emotion of the fighter shines through the ring with every part of them on the line. It may or may not be an artistic tour de force but it is impossible not to care about these characters and that is something that has not been seen in the theaters for some time. A-

The Help

Based in the racially charged Deep South during the sixties The Help takes a look at the perspective of the hired help and what they were forced to grin and take during Jim Crow. The heart of the story is in the right place. Everything else seems to be scattered from the emotion to the narrator. This fluctuation may work for a book but in the movie the story seems to be all over the place.

The story itself is very convincing and connects itself to the audience. There didn't seem to be any over dramatization for the sake of getting a reaction. Although it seemed there was plenty of room for just such an action as one can't help but feel nervous for the main characters as they attempt to do what they feel to be the right thing. Instead the story is told true to what life could have been during this tumultuous time. The story seemed so natural that I believed it to be a true story.

The Help follows the action of two women attempting to share the story of their town with the rest of the country. Emma Stone plays Skeeter a fledgling writer living in a well to do Mississippi town. She is looking to make the move from small town journalist to novelist and to do that she needs to find a subject to speak to that people around her seem to be missing out on. After noticing the way her friends and family treat the hired help, she believes she has found her subject. No one is willing to talk to Skeeter about what really goes on in these white homes fearing the repercussions until she finally convinces Ailbileen Clark played by Viola Davis to speak about her life. While the story is about the black workers and the voiceovers are done by Viola Davis, Emma Stone’s character seems to be the one pushing the plot along. Only Hollywood could take a movie about the plight of Black workers in Jackson, Mississippi during the sixties and have it star a white woman.

The book features three different perspectives both the point of view of Skeeter and Ailbileen along with Ailbileen's friend Minny. In the movie Minny, played by Octavia Spencer takes a back seat and provides more comic relief than perspective. The movie is at its best when the focus of the movie turns to Davis and Spencer. As you can expect Davis, a Tony and Oscar nominated actress, brings in a powerful performance. All her emotions dazzle through the eyes of this performer and it is her character that can raise you up or bring you down. Spencer does not convey her fears as well as Davis, and while she obviously fears for her livelihood at time she does much better with sass.

Their white counterparts do a fine job. It is easy to see why Emma Stone is in so many movies, she is charismatic, talented, and cute. She does a great job in the movie but is probably given too much to do, including a romance that has no bearing on the story, and in fact takes away from the idea that this movie is about strong independent women. Her romance is the only male prominently featured in the movie; all others are pushed out of the scene or are only there at the whims of their wives to showcase the women of the time. No better example than queen bee and president of the Junior League Hilly Holbrook, played by Opie's daughter Bryce Dallas Howard. Hilly holds the most power in her group of women and has ostracized those who would get in her way. Howard really gets herself into the character, pushing those around her to maintain the status quo of the town all while wearing a perfect smile. Howard does a great job bringing to life a deplorable character.

With such strong talent in front of the camera most of its waywardness can be attributed to the relatively new director Tate Taylor. Taylor is a close friend of the novel's author Kathryn Stockett and may have been convinced to keep too much of the story. While not necessarily a bad thing to stay so true to a beloved book, there is no need to keep everything, and someone with such little experience or sway may not know how to correctly pace a movie.

The movie itself though is fine, it doesn't get bogged down or overzealous, though it is often fairly overt on what the characters are thinking and how you should feel. The movie concerns itself with making sure fans of the book can cherish the story and share it with those who have yet to read it, and in that respect the movie accomplishes its goals. If you allow yourself to be taken into their world you will surely feel better for it. C