With both The Fighter and Black Swan already generating wide critical acclaim, the strong praise surrounding True Grit only further illustrated that audiences were being spoiled with a surprisingly large number of high-quality films during the Holiday Movie Season. While I may not be the biggest fan of traditional Westerns, I’ve learned that when the Coen brothers make a film, it is to any movie fan’s benefit to pay attention. Between O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Burn After Reading, and the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men, the Coen brothers have been responsible for some of my favorite films, so even though I had never seen John Wayne’s 1969 original performance, I was nevertheless excited for True Grit. In addition to the strong reputation of the directors, True Grit also benefited from a truly talented cast, which included the increasingly-popular Jeff Bridges, fan-favorite Matt Damon, and the often-underrated Josh Brolin (who clearly wanted to forget his last venture into the western genre, last summer’s disastrous Jonah Hex). With these credentials, it was clear that True Grit would appeal to both fans of the original and an entirely new and younger movie-going generation.
In retrospect, True Grit is a good film with strong acting, but I confess that I found myself slightly bored throughout. The trailers make it seem like True Grit is action-packed and filled with old-fashioned western violence, but the reality is that those “exciting” scenes only last a few minutes and appear largely towards the end of the two-hour story. Jeff Bridges and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld give the standout performances among the cast, but it’s unfair to label the other actors as underperforming when they only appear in a handful of scenes. Matt Damon’s role is relatively small, and even though Josh Brolin’s character is talked about almost the entire film, he only appears for about 10 minutes, if that, thereby making it seem like both talented actors were largely underused. In all likelihood, I probably didn’t like True Grit that much just because I’m not used to traditional Westerns, a formula that the film sticks to so closely that it limits the overall appeal as it clearly caters to older audiences.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Thursday, December 30, 2010
True Grit: Full Review
True Grit - (December 22nd, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $24,850,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $36,068,000
Gross Revenue: $49,381,000
Budget: $38 million
Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen
When the Coen brothers first set out remake the 1969 John Wayne classic True Grit, they knew that the best way to faithfully adapt the novel of the same name was to select an appropriate young actress to portray the stubborn protagonist Mattie Ross. After an open casting call of more than 15,000 applicants, Paramount settled on newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who would have to hold her own against Hollywood heavyweights Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. Perhaps the biggest challenge would fall to Bridges, who would have to take up a role made famous by the legendary “Duke,” John Wayne, but between his Best Actor Oscar for 2009’s Crazy Heart and his diverse body of work from everything to Iron Man and Tron: Legacy, it was clear that Bridges was up to the challenge. And let’s not forget that Bridges previously worked with the Coen brothers in the cult classic The Big Lebowski. With the shared track record of both the directors and the actors, it looked like True Grit had an absolute formula for success, and trailers seemed to promise plenty of old-fashioned Western action to appease even the most casual fans of the genre. Needless to say, I was expecting nothing short of another Coen brothers’ masterpiece.
True Grit starts off by introducing audiences to headstrong fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfled), who is trying to avenge her father’s murder at the hands of one of his workers, Tom Chaney (Brolin). Seeking to hire a Deputy U.S. Marshall to track down Chaney and bring him to justice, Mattie settles on the weathered yet experienced Rooster Cogburn (Bridges). With the help of Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Damon), who has been tracking Chaney for months, the trio set out on the terrain to hunt the ruthless murderer. Facing everything from outlaws to an uncertain terrain, Mattie must remain strong and face her fears alongside the two men in which she has decided to place her trust. In the end, the three wildly different personalities learn from each other and protect one another through the shared goal of catching the notorious outlaw.
As the grizzled and often-intoxicated Cogburn, Bridges is thoroughly entertaining and his antics are often a welcome break from the otherwise monotonous situations that plague True Grit. Though he is at times impossible to understand through his slurred speech, Bridges brings a level of intensity to the character that helps the audience to both sympathize with the experiences that weigh on the Marshall’s shoulders and relate to the bond that he forms with the young Mattie. It’s almost as if Cogburn is seeking redemption for the past sins he has committed by becoming a paternal figure to the girl that has just lost her father, and especially in the dramatic ending, the relationship is heartwarming. When it comes to Mattie herself, Steinfeld demonstrates considerable acting ability, coming across as a tough-as-nails youth who is eager to prove her competence and rectify any and all injustices that have befallen her over the course of her short life. While Mattie’s determination comes off a little strong at times and therefore makes it difficult to sympathize with the character, few can deny the high quality of the overall performance. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, the strong acting is largely unable to build up any momentum thanks to the painfully slow pace of the underlying narrative.
While the previews would have potential audiences believe that True Grit is an action-packed adventure, the sad reality is that all of the action sequences within the film only amount to a few minutes of screen time, not lasting much longer than the very trailers in which they were first introduced. Granted, the core story of True Grit does involve the three heroes searching the wilderness, but watching the characters ride around slowly and talk about life can only hold my attention for so long; any and all action is localized in the film’s climax, and by then, I would suspect that a majority of younger audiences will have lost interest. Another great tragedy involves the underuse of Matt Damon and Josh Brolin; Damon is humorous as the cocky Texas Ranger, but he is only around for a couple of scenes, leaving almost no room for any form of character development. As for Brolin, an often-underrated actor, even though his character is the supposed main villain of the film, he only appears onscreen for about five minutes, which is both disappointing and anti-climatic. Now, maybe I’m just not used to Western films, but between the slow pacing, low character development, and a thoroughly cornball soundtrack, I was disappointed in True Grit.
From a box office perspective, True Grit opened strongly during the holiday weekend, taking in just under $25 million. I had previously been concerned that the film’s overall quality would suffer from a PG-13 as opposed to an R-rating, but critics don’t seemed phased in the least and such a rating is clearly helping to boost box office receipts. Paramount has already recovered its production budget and it is likely that more revenue will flow in as Oscar-season begins to approach. I may sound critical in this review, but I want to emphasize that True Grit is not a bad movie; it simply wasn’t my type of movie. If you are a fan of Westerns (as is likely for a majority of older audiences), then I’m sure you will love the Coen brothers’ newest offering, but for everyone else, be warned that the end result is not as entertaining as you may have been led to believe.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $24,850,000
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $36,068,000
Gross Revenue: $49,381,000
Budget: $38 million
Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen
When the Coen brothers first set out remake the 1969 John Wayne classic True Grit, they knew that the best way to faithfully adapt the novel of the same name was to select an appropriate young actress to portray the stubborn protagonist Mattie Ross. After an open casting call of more than 15,000 applicants, Paramount settled on newcomer Hailee Steinfeld, who would have to hold her own against Hollywood heavyweights Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, and Josh Brolin. Perhaps the biggest challenge would fall to Bridges, who would have to take up a role made famous by the legendary “Duke,” John Wayne, but between his Best Actor Oscar for 2009’s Crazy Heart and his diverse body of work from everything to Iron Man and Tron: Legacy, it was clear that Bridges was up to the challenge. And let’s not forget that Bridges previously worked with the Coen brothers in the cult classic The Big Lebowski. With the shared track record of both the directors and the actors, it looked like True Grit had an absolute formula for success, and trailers seemed to promise plenty of old-fashioned Western action to appease even the most casual fans of the genre. Needless to say, I was expecting nothing short of another Coen brothers’ masterpiece.
True Grit starts off by introducing audiences to headstrong fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross (Steinfled), who is trying to avenge her father’s murder at the hands of one of his workers, Tom Chaney (Brolin). Seeking to hire a Deputy U.S. Marshall to track down Chaney and bring him to justice, Mattie settles on the weathered yet experienced Rooster Cogburn (Bridges). With the help of Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Damon), who has been tracking Chaney for months, the trio set out on the terrain to hunt the ruthless murderer. Facing everything from outlaws to an uncertain terrain, Mattie must remain strong and face her fears alongside the two men in which she has decided to place her trust. In the end, the three wildly different personalities learn from each other and protect one another through the shared goal of catching the notorious outlaw.
As the grizzled and often-intoxicated Cogburn, Bridges is thoroughly entertaining and his antics are often a welcome break from the otherwise monotonous situations that plague True Grit. Though he is at times impossible to understand through his slurred speech, Bridges brings a level of intensity to the character that helps the audience to both sympathize with the experiences that weigh on the Marshall’s shoulders and relate to the bond that he forms with the young Mattie. It’s almost as if Cogburn is seeking redemption for the past sins he has committed by becoming a paternal figure to the girl that has just lost her father, and especially in the dramatic ending, the relationship is heartwarming. When it comes to Mattie herself, Steinfeld demonstrates considerable acting ability, coming across as a tough-as-nails youth who is eager to prove her competence and rectify any and all injustices that have befallen her over the course of her short life. While Mattie’s determination comes off a little strong at times and therefore makes it difficult to sympathize with the character, few can deny the high quality of the overall performance. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, the strong acting is largely unable to build up any momentum thanks to the painfully slow pace of the underlying narrative.
While the previews would have potential audiences believe that True Grit is an action-packed adventure, the sad reality is that all of the action sequences within the film only amount to a few minutes of screen time, not lasting much longer than the very trailers in which they were first introduced. Granted, the core story of True Grit does involve the three heroes searching the wilderness, but watching the characters ride around slowly and talk about life can only hold my attention for so long; any and all action is localized in the film’s climax, and by then, I would suspect that a majority of younger audiences will have lost interest. Another great tragedy involves the underuse of Matt Damon and Josh Brolin; Damon is humorous as the cocky Texas Ranger, but he is only around for a couple of scenes, leaving almost no room for any form of character development. As for Brolin, an often-underrated actor, even though his character is the supposed main villain of the film, he only appears onscreen for about five minutes, which is both disappointing and anti-climatic. Now, maybe I’m just not used to Western films, but between the slow pacing, low character development, and a thoroughly cornball soundtrack, I was disappointed in True Grit.
From a box office perspective, True Grit opened strongly during the holiday weekend, taking in just under $25 million. I had previously been concerned that the film’s overall quality would suffer from a PG-13 as opposed to an R-rating, but critics don’t seemed phased in the least and such a rating is clearly helping to boost box office receipts. Paramount has already recovered its production budget and it is likely that more revenue will flow in as Oscar-season begins to approach. I may sound critical in this review, but I want to emphasize that True Grit is not a bad movie; it simply wasn’t my type of movie. If you are a fan of Westerns (as is likely for a majority of older audiences), then I’m sure you will love the Coen brothers’ newest offering, but for everyone else, be warned that the end result is not as entertaining as you may have been led to believe.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Little Fockers: Short and Sweet
It’s been a decade since audiences were first introduced to neurotic male nurse Gaylord “Greg” Focker (Ben Stiller) in 2000’s Meet the Parents, but in all that time the character has become something of a cultural icon. Not only do we love to pronounce his last name, but the interaction between Greg and his ex-CIA father-in-law Jack Byrnes (Robert De Niro) has also proven to be a successful formula for box office success. Having previously met both sets of in-laws, it was now time for moviegoers to meet the newest and youngest members of Greg’s family, the titular “Little Fockers.” Marketing for the film was relatively straightforward, as even though the last installment of the franchise was in 2004 (Meet the Fockers), Universal was able to bring back the entire star-studded original cast. So, at the very least, audiences would be greeted by some familiar faces to see the next chapter in the always-hectic story of everyone’s favorite male nurse.
Now, I’ll admit that I am not the biggest fan of Meet the Parents or Meet the Fockers, so I went into this film with extremely low expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Little Fockers. I have no problem labeling this sequel the funniest of the series, but then again, given my opinion of the whole franchise, that might not be saying all that much. The interaction between Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro is easily the most enjoyable part of the film, and Little Fockers took a significant step forward in toning down both Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman, who I felt were rather annoying past additions to the cast. That being said though, the film in its entirety still felt largely unnecessary, as both the story and humor came across as forced, in the end adding nothing new or wholly original to the comedy genre. Overall, Little Fockers is mildly entertaining, good for a few cheap laughs, and successfully plays-off viewer familiarity with big-name celebrities, but it is nothing that you should rush off to the theater to see this weekend.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Now, I’ll admit that I am not the biggest fan of Meet the Parents or Meet the Fockers, so I went into this film with extremely low expectations, but I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Little Fockers. I have no problem labeling this sequel the funniest of the series, but then again, given my opinion of the whole franchise, that might not be saying all that much. The interaction between Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro is easily the most enjoyable part of the film, and Little Fockers took a significant step forward in toning down both Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman, who I felt were rather annoying past additions to the cast. That being said though, the film in its entirety still felt largely unnecessary, as both the story and humor came across as forced, in the end adding nothing new or wholly original to the comedy genre. Overall, Little Fockers is mildly entertaining, good for a few cheap laughs, and successfully plays-off viewer familiarity with big-name celebrities, but it is nothing that you should rush off to the theater to see this weekend.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Little Fockers: Full Review
Little Fockers - (December 22nd, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Studios (subsidiary of NBC Universal)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $30,833,665
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $45,083,800
Gross Revenue: $88,279,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Paul Weitz
When I saw the first trailer for Little Fockers, I couldn’t believe that Universal was still spending the time and energy to explore the dynamic between a male nurse and his ex-CIA father-in-law, especially since I wasn’t thrilled by the first two installments in the franchise. We first met Greg’s potential in-laws in 2000’s Meet the Parents and then were introduced to his bizarre and off-beat parents in 2004’s Meet the Fockers; this time around, audiences would now see how Greg handles fatherhood with two young children. Little Fockers was originally planned for release in late July, but Universal hoped to benefit from the long holiday weekend and so pushed the release date back to December 22nd. With the trailer attached to everything from summer hits like Grown Ups or recent releases such as Morning Glory, buzz for the film had months to build; and let’s not forget the media attention that followed the rumors that Dustin Hoffman would not be returning as Greg’s eccentric father, Bernie Focker. Luckily, last-minute negotiations enabled Universal to bring back the entire cast, so even though I wasn’t particularly thrilled by this sequel, I was willing to give the star-studded comedy Little Fockers the benefit of the doubt.
Little Fockers starts off by introducing audiences to Henry and Samantha, the five-year-old twins of Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his wife Pam (Teri Polo). With the help of his in-laws Jack (Robert De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner), Greg is busy planning the twins’ 5th birthday party and preparing for the arrival of his own parents, Roz (Barbara Streisand) and Bernie (Dustin Hoffman). Unfortunately, Jack has been running into some health problems and wants to make sure that Greg will make an appropriate patriarch for the family, but his paranoia begins to set in when he discovers that Greg is working with young and sexy pharmaceutical rep Andi (Jessica Alba). Adding to the complications is the arrival of Pam’s ex-boyfriend, the wealthy and immensely successful Kevin (Owen Wilson). With so many hectic and comical family dynamics at play, Greg is tasked with proving his competence as both a family leader and a devoted father.
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, Little Fockers actually ended up being way funnier than expected, mixing both cheap laughs with some truly clever situations. Though I felt that the first two installments in the franchise were relatively weak, the interaction between Greg and Jack has always been entertaining, and this time around, the bickering between father-in-law and son-in-law is surprisingly funny. Another positive includes the fact that Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand’s roles were downgraded to little more than extended cameos; I found both incredibly annoying and unfunny in Meet the Fockers, so I was glad that the writers decided to tone down the two characters. The biggest surprise was Jessica Alba, whose character started off as an incredibly misplaced addition to the cast, but later evolved into a nutty and enjoyable potential home wrecker for the Focker family. As likely the last film in the franchise, Little Fockers helps bring a humorous ending to the family legacy that was set into motion ten years ago.
However, a few laughs are not enough to save some of the big problems present in Little Fockers, the most apparent being the film’s lack of compelling story. By an large, Little Fockers felt like it was made out of necessity rather than innovation, with studio execs trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dying franchise rather than adding an original and compelling chapter to the overall story. We met one set of in-laws in the original, so it made sense that audiences would be introduced to the other side of the family in the sequel, but this time around, it just doesn’t seem necessary to explore the addition of young children into the mix; especially when you consider the fact that the kids themselves are only in the film for a handful of scenes. What starts out as a story about the kids quickly shifts solely to the dynamic of Jack obsessively accusing Greg of infidelity, and it’s both unnecessary and rather boring. Finally, some critics hailed Owen Wilson as the funniest part of the cast, but I couldn’t disagree more; his presence in this film was little more than a name drop, as his erratic character largely served as an unwelcome intrusion in the flow of the narrative. For every step that Little Fockers took forward with a funny joke or humorous situation, these numerous errors helped serve as massive leaps backwards.
Competing against True Grit and Gulliver’s Travels over the holiday weekend, Little Fockers was able to bring in a respectable 5-day total of $45 million for the top spot at the box office. Combining this strong domestic performance with international receipts, Little Fockers has already achieved a worldwide total of nearly $90 million, so even sub-par reviews don’t seem to be deterring audiences. Now, despite all the negative aspects, I still consider Little Fockers to be the funniest and best entry in the franchise, an opinion which considerably differs from a majority of critics, who largely panned the film. It’s up to you, Little Fockers appealed to my style of humor where the previous films failed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll find it funny. There are still major flaws that prevent me from strongly compelling anyone to see this newest comedy.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Universal Studios (subsidiary of NBC Universal)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $30,833,665
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $45,083,800
Gross Revenue: $88,279,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Paul Weitz
When I saw the first trailer for Little Fockers, I couldn’t believe that Universal was still spending the time and energy to explore the dynamic between a male nurse and his ex-CIA father-in-law, especially since I wasn’t thrilled by the first two installments in the franchise. We first met Greg’s potential in-laws in 2000’s Meet the Parents and then were introduced to his bizarre and off-beat parents in 2004’s Meet the Fockers; this time around, audiences would now see how Greg handles fatherhood with two young children. Little Fockers was originally planned for release in late July, but Universal hoped to benefit from the long holiday weekend and so pushed the release date back to December 22nd. With the trailer attached to everything from summer hits like Grown Ups or recent releases such as Morning Glory, buzz for the film had months to build; and let’s not forget the media attention that followed the rumors that Dustin Hoffman would not be returning as Greg’s eccentric father, Bernie Focker. Luckily, last-minute negotiations enabled Universal to bring back the entire cast, so even though I wasn’t particularly thrilled by this sequel, I was willing to give the star-studded comedy Little Fockers the benefit of the doubt.
Little Fockers starts off by introducing audiences to Henry and Samantha, the five-year-old twins of Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his wife Pam (Teri Polo). With the help of his in-laws Jack (Robert De Niro) and Dina (Blythe Danner), Greg is busy planning the twins’ 5th birthday party and preparing for the arrival of his own parents, Roz (Barbara Streisand) and Bernie (Dustin Hoffman). Unfortunately, Jack has been running into some health problems and wants to make sure that Greg will make an appropriate patriarch for the family, but his paranoia begins to set in when he discovers that Greg is working with young and sexy pharmaceutical rep Andi (Jessica Alba). Adding to the complications is the arrival of Pam’s ex-boyfriend, the wealthy and immensely successful Kevin (Owen Wilson). With so many hectic and comical family dynamics at play, Greg is tasked with proving his competence as both a family leader and a devoted father.
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, Little Fockers actually ended up being way funnier than expected, mixing both cheap laughs with some truly clever situations. Though I felt that the first two installments in the franchise were relatively weak, the interaction between Greg and Jack has always been entertaining, and this time around, the bickering between father-in-law and son-in-law is surprisingly funny. Another positive includes the fact that Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand’s roles were downgraded to little more than extended cameos; I found both incredibly annoying and unfunny in Meet the Fockers, so I was glad that the writers decided to tone down the two characters. The biggest surprise was Jessica Alba, whose character started off as an incredibly misplaced addition to the cast, but later evolved into a nutty and enjoyable potential home wrecker for the Focker family. As likely the last film in the franchise, Little Fockers helps bring a humorous ending to the family legacy that was set into motion ten years ago.
However, a few laughs are not enough to save some of the big problems present in Little Fockers, the most apparent being the film’s lack of compelling story. By an large, Little Fockers felt like it was made out of necessity rather than innovation, with studio execs trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a dying franchise rather than adding an original and compelling chapter to the overall story. We met one set of in-laws in the original, so it made sense that audiences would be introduced to the other side of the family in the sequel, but this time around, it just doesn’t seem necessary to explore the addition of young children into the mix; especially when you consider the fact that the kids themselves are only in the film for a handful of scenes. What starts out as a story about the kids quickly shifts solely to the dynamic of Jack obsessively accusing Greg of infidelity, and it’s both unnecessary and rather boring. Finally, some critics hailed Owen Wilson as the funniest part of the cast, but I couldn’t disagree more; his presence in this film was little more than a name drop, as his erratic character largely served as an unwelcome intrusion in the flow of the narrative. For every step that Little Fockers took forward with a funny joke or humorous situation, these numerous errors helped serve as massive leaps backwards.
Competing against True Grit and Gulliver’s Travels over the holiday weekend, Little Fockers was able to bring in a respectable 5-day total of $45 million for the top spot at the box office. Combining this strong domestic performance with international receipts, Little Fockers has already achieved a worldwide total of nearly $90 million, so even sub-par reviews don’t seem to be deterring audiences. Now, despite all the negative aspects, I still consider Little Fockers to be the funniest and best entry in the franchise, an opinion which considerably differs from a majority of critics, who largely panned the film. It’s up to you, Little Fockers appealed to my style of humor where the previous films failed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll find it funny. There are still major flaws that prevent me from strongly compelling anyone to see this newest comedy.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Fighter: Short and Sweet
It’s not that often that Hollywood rewards audiences with an ensemble cast in an engaging drama, so when I heard that Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, and Amy Adams would be working together in a boxing film, I was understandably excited. Early trailers for this newest sports drama were engaging enough, but what really helped build the buzz for The Fighter was the high level of early critical acclaim surrounding the film. Even before release, The Fighter earned multiple Golden Globe nominations, honoring the strong acting, directing, and overall quality of the film. Christian Bale is notorious for the physical and emotional dedication he puts into his different roles, and many critics predicted that his performance as troubled boxer Dicky Eklund would not only get him the Golden Globe, but also earn him his first Oscar nomination. With TIME Magazine characterizing The Fighter as a mix between Rocky, The Blind Side, and The Departed, I couldn’t wait to see this early Oscar contender.
There are times when a strongly-hyped film falls short of expectations, but that certainly isn’t the case with The Fighter, which I am happy to report is one of the best films of the year. With humor, drama, and action brilliantly blended together, The Fighter brings engaging characters to life to tell a thoroughly entertaining story that audiences won’t soon forget. Wahlberg and Adams demonstrate outstanding acting ability, but as expected, the standout performance belongs to Christian Bale, whose mannerisms, speech patterns, and expressions so fully embody his drug-addicted character that it’s hard to believe this is the same guy who dressed like a bat and beat up the Joker two summers ago. Looking back, I really don’t have anything truly negative to say about The Fighter, I loved the film and would see it again in a heartbeat. Sports Illustrated has called The Fighter the “best sports film of the decade,” and I couldn’t agree more; during the Holiday Movie Season, do not miss this must-see film, which is sure to entertain audiences, win numerous awards, and become an instant classic.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
There are times when a strongly-hyped film falls short of expectations, but that certainly isn’t the case with The Fighter, which I am happy to report is one of the best films of the year. With humor, drama, and action brilliantly blended together, The Fighter brings engaging characters to life to tell a thoroughly entertaining story that audiences won’t soon forget. Wahlberg and Adams demonstrate outstanding acting ability, but as expected, the standout performance belongs to Christian Bale, whose mannerisms, speech patterns, and expressions so fully embody his drug-addicted character that it’s hard to believe this is the same guy who dressed like a bat and beat up the Joker two summers ago. Looking back, I really don’t have anything truly negative to say about The Fighter, I loved the film and would see it again in a heartbeat. Sports Illustrated has called The Fighter the “best sports film of the decade,” and I couldn’t agree more; during the Holiday Movie Season, do not miss this must-see film, which is sure to entertain audiences, win numerous awards, and become an instant classic.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Fighter: Full Review
The Fighter - (December 17th, 2010): R
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $12,135,468
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $19,074,000
Gross Revenue: $19,074,000
Budget: $11 million
Director: David O. Russell
During the Summer Movie Season, I had mentioned that Inception represented the penultimate pet project for director Christopher Nolan; in a similar vein, during the Holiday Movie Season, The Fighter represents an absolute passion project for Mark Wahlberg. Because of his close friendship with the real “Irish” Mickey Ward and his attraction to the plot’s focus on an underdog story, Wahlberg threw himself fully into this role, training for close to four years (even receiving instruction from world champion boxer Manny Pacquiao), constructing a boxing-ring in his home to help his preparation, and even refusing to use stunt-doubles during the film’s brutal fight scenes (he almost broke his nose twice). Christian Bale’s preparation to play Mickey Ward’s half-brother Dicky Eklund was equally impressive; though both Brad Pitt and Matt Damon were initially attached to the role, Bale’s ability to physically transform himself made his transition to portray Eklund’s drug addiction relatively easy (he had once lost sixty-three pounds to play the emaciated protagonist in 2003’s The Machinist). Individually, both of these actors have an extremely dedicated fan-base, so putting them together was a natural choice for Hollywood that was successfully highlighted in Paramount’s marketing campaign for The Fighter. By positioning this newest sports drama as a future classic with an ensemble cast that has already been warmly received by critics and evokes memories of past crowd pleasers like Rocky or The Departed, it was clear that The Fighter would be an absolute success and a must-see for holiday audiences.
Based on a true story, The Fighter follows the story of young boxer “Irish” Micky Ward (Wahlberg), who is trying to launch his fighting career with the support of his family and the Lowell, Massachusettes, community. Ward is following in the footsteps of his older half-brother and sparring partner Dicky Eklund (Bale), a former welterweight who was once a local hero famous for fighting Sugar Ray Leonard, but has now declined into a crippling crack addiction. With Dicky as his trainer, Micky is managed by his well-meaning but closed-minded mother Alice (Melissa Leo); though, as his family, they claim to have his best interests in mind, Micky soon realizes that both his mother and brother are hampering his opportunities with their erratic behavior. Once Micky meets outgoing bartender and potential love-interest Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams), he starts to separate from his family by following his own path and, as a result, considerable tension begins to rise. In the end, Micky must balance his family loyalty and his own ambitions, all while helping his brother through his destructive addiction and achieving success as a professional fighter in search of a world title.
There are so many positive aspects to The Fighter that it is hard to know where to begin, but I feel that the setting of the film helped bring an extra dimension of realism to both the story and the characters. Because The Fighter was filmed on location in Lowell, Massachusettes, the audience gets a true sense of not only the protagonist’s desire to move beyond his hometown but also the strong dynamic that exists between Ward’s family and the community. Melissa Leo is entertaining as Ward’s confrontational mother and Wahlberg displays a determination and vulnerability that characterizes the best type of underdog, but the true standout performances belong to Amy Adams and Christian Bale. As Ward’s love interest Charlene, Adams steps into the grittiest role of her career, portraying a tough, sexy, and sharp-tongued young woman that is a surprising and pleasant break from her usually sweet and sensitive characters. When it comes to Bale, his performance is nothing short of mesmerizing, as everything from his mannerisms to his speech patterns are so fully dedicated to and convincing in bringing the character of Ward’s crack-addicted sibling to life that you would think he himself was going to his trailer and lighting up between takes. If Bale doesn’t win both the Golden Globe and Oscar for this performance, I will be nothing short of horrified. Besides the characters and setting, the story and dialogue of the film perfectly blend elements of humor, emotion, and action, so that the audience is able to laugh at the banter between Charlene and Micky’s family, to sympathize with Dicky as he realizes how far his addiction has gone, and to cheer as Micky steps into the ring; the transitions are seamless and constant, making the end-result thoroughly entertaining.
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I really don’t have any substantial criticisms of The Fighter. If anything, the film itself does start off a bit slow, as it takes some time for the characters and setting to build momentum, but the whole experience is so entertaining that this shortcoming (which only lasts about twenty minutes) is easily forgivable. In terms of the story, some may criticize that the underdog angle is a little predictable, with Ward fighting his way to the top of the boxing circuit, but I would argue that the true focus of The Fighter is the dynamic between the two siblings. Wahlberg and Bale play very convincing brothers, and despite all the turbulence that their two characters have been through together, it is very clear that they will always care for each other. In one notable scene, after Micky has started to separate himself from the family, Dicky questions him as to whether he would be anywhere without his older brother looking after him, and after a heated argument, the two decide to vent their frustrations in a sparring match; throughout the scene, the energy and emotion between the two is just electrifying. With so few criticisms, all I can do is echo my earlier praise and tell audiences to sit back and enjoy The Fighter.
Unfortunately, even though The Fighter has been critically acclaimed, from a box office perspective, the film’s performance is nowhere near as impressive. The Fighter was initially slated for a December 10th release, but Paramount pushed the film back a week to avoid competition with The Tourist. I consider this a big misstep, since now, rather than go up against a mediocre Depp-Jolie thriller and the underperforming Narnia franchise, The Fighter was forced to contend with everything from romantic comedy (How Do You Know) to family-friendly (Yogi Bear and Tron: Legacy) and dark drama (Black Swan). While opening in fourth with just over $12 million may sound weak, in the face of so much competition, the R-rated drama’s performance is still respectable. On a brighter note, thanks to the small production budget, Paramount was already able to turn a profit after just one weekend, and with so much award buzz surrounding the film, box office receipts should only continue to increase. Of all the films that I have reviewed since I started writing this blog, The Fighter is easily one of my favorites, and I cannot emphasize enough how much audiences need to go see this gift of a movie…Merry Christmas! (I don’t care if you thought that last line was corny, I found it clever and witty)
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $12,135,468
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $19,074,000
Gross Revenue: $19,074,000
Budget: $11 million
Director: David O. Russell
During the Summer Movie Season, I had mentioned that Inception represented the penultimate pet project for director Christopher Nolan; in a similar vein, during the Holiday Movie Season, The Fighter represents an absolute passion project for Mark Wahlberg. Because of his close friendship with the real “Irish” Mickey Ward and his attraction to the plot’s focus on an underdog story, Wahlberg threw himself fully into this role, training for close to four years (even receiving instruction from world champion boxer Manny Pacquiao), constructing a boxing-ring in his home to help his preparation, and even refusing to use stunt-doubles during the film’s brutal fight scenes (he almost broke his nose twice). Christian Bale’s preparation to play Mickey Ward’s half-brother Dicky Eklund was equally impressive; though both Brad Pitt and Matt Damon were initially attached to the role, Bale’s ability to physically transform himself made his transition to portray Eklund’s drug addiction relatively easy (he had once lost sixty-three pounds to play the emaciated protagonist in 2003’s The Machinist). Individually, both of these actors have an extremely dedicated fan-base, so putting them together was a natural choice for Hollywood that was successfully highlighted in Paramount’s marketing campaign for The Fighter. By positioning this newest sports drama as a future classic with an ensemble cast that has already been warmly received by critics and evokes memories of past crowd pleasers like Rocky or The Departed, it was clear that The Fighter would be an absolute success and a must-see for holiday audiences.
Based on a true story, The Fighter follows the story of young boxer “Irish” Micky Ward (Wahlberg), who is trying to launch his fighting career with the support of his family and the Lowell, Massachusettes, community. Ward is following in the footsteps of his older half-brother and sparring partner Dicky Eklund (Bale), a former welterweight who was once a local hero famous for fighting Sugar Ray Leonard, but has now declined into a crippling crack addiction. With Dicky as his trainer, Micky is managed by his well-meaning but closed-minded mother Alice (Melissa Leo); though, as his family, they claim to have his best interests in mind, Micky soon realizes that both his mother and brother are hampering his opportunities with their erratic behavior. Once Micky meets outgoing bartender and potential love-interest Charlene Fleming (Amy Adams), he starts to separate from his family by following his own path and, as a result, considerable tension begins to rise. In the end, Micky must balance his family loyalty and his own ambitions, all while helping his brother through his destructive addiction and achieving success as a professional fighter in search of a world title.
There are so many positive aspects to The Fighter that it is hard to know where to begin, but I feel that the setting of the film helped bring an extra dimension of realism to both the story and the characters. Because The Fighter was filmed on location in Lowell, Massachusettes, the audience gets a true sense of not only the protagonist’s desire to move beyond his hometown but also the strong dynamic that exists between Ward’s family and the community. Melissa Leo is entertaining as Ward’s confrontational mother and Wahlberg displays a determination and vulnerability that characterizes the best type of underdog, but the true standout performances belong to Amy Adams and Christian Bale. As Ward’s love interest Charlene, Adams steps into the grittiest role of her career, portraying a tough, sexy, and sharp-tongued young woman that is a surprising and pleasant break from her usually sweet and sensitive characters. When it comes to Bale, his performance is nothing short of mesmerizing, as everything from his mannerisms to his speech patterns are so fully dedicated to and convincing in bringing the character of Ward’s crack-addicted sibling to life that you would think he himself was going to his trailer and lighting up between takes. If Bale doesn’t win both the Golden Globe and Oscar for this performance, I will be nothing short of horrified. Besides the characters and setting, the story and dialogue of the film perfectly blend elements of humor, emotion, and action, so that the audience is able to laugh at the banter between Charlene and Micky’s family, to sympathize with Dicky as he realizes how far his addiction has gone, and to cheer as Micky steps into the ring; the transitions are seamless and constant, making the end-result thoroughly entertaining.
As I said in the “Short and Sweet” review, I really don’t have any substantial criticisms of The Fighter. If anything, the film itself does start off a bit slow, as it takes some time for the characters and setting to build momentum, but the whole experience is so entertaining that this shortcoming (which only lasts about twenty minutes) is easily forgivable. In terms of the story, some may criticize that the underdog angle is a little predictable, with Ward fighting his way to the top of the boxing circuit, but I would argue that the true focus of The Fighter is the dynamic between the two siblings. Wahlberg and Bale play very convincing brothers, and despite all the turbulence that their two characters have been through together, it is very clear that they will always care for each other. In one notable scene, after Micky has started to separate himself from the family, Dicky questions him as to whether he would be anywhere without his older brother looking after him, and after a heated argument, the two decide to vent their frustrations in a sparring match; throughout the scene, the energy and emotion between the two is just electrifying. With so few criticisms, all I can do is echo my earlier praise and tell audiences to sit back and enjoy The Fighter.
Unfortunately, even though The Fighter has been critically acclaimed, from a box office perspective, the film’s performance is nowhere near as impressive. The Fighter was initially slated for a December 10th release, but Paramount pushed the film back a week to avoid competition with The Tourist. I consider this a big misstep, since now, rather than go up against a mediocre Depp-Jolie thriller and the underperforming Narnia franchise, The Fighter was forced to contend with everything from romantic comedy (How Do You Know) to family-friendly (Yogi Bear and Tron: Legacy) and dark drama (Black Swan). While opening in fourth with just over $12 million may sound weak, in the face of so much competition, the R-rated drama’s performance is still respectable. On a brighter note, thanks to the small production budget, Paramount was already able to turn a profit after just one weekend, and with so much award buzz surrounding the film, box office receipts should only continue to increase. Of all the films that I have reviewed since I started writing this blog, The Fighter is easily one of my favorites, and I cannot emphasize enough how much audiences need to go see this gift of a movie…Merry Christmas! (I don’t care if you thought that last line was corny, I found it clever and witty)
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tron: Legacy - Short and Sweet
Ever since it was first announced at 2008’s San Diego Comic-Con, Tron: Legacy has easily been one of Walt Disney Pictures’ biggest and most expansive projects, geared towards reviving and expanding a multimedia franchise that began with the 1982 original, Tron. With nearly thirty years between the original and sequel, Disney clearly had a big challenge in introducing an iconic sci-fi film to an entirely new generation, but the sad reality is that Tron wasn’t that popular when it was first released. To compensate for this potential shortcoming, Disney launched a shockingly aggressive and innovative marketing campaign (valued at nearly $100 million), not only releasing numerous fan-sites and redubbing the monorails at Walt Disney World Resort “TRONORAILS,” but also establishing a high-energy street festival at Disney’s California Adventure known as ElecTRONica, which included everything from dance shows to incandescent drinks. To reach the target audience of teenagers and young adults, the strongest selling point of the newest Tron film would clearly be the impressive special effects and 3D technology that could now be used to bring the digital world of the narrative to life. Though I myself had never seen the original Tron, I was open to some cool special effects; at the very least, with all the hype surrounding the sequel, Tron: Legacy had earned my time and attention.
In retrospect, Tron: Legacy was nowhere near as good as it could have been, but that is not to say that the end result wasn’t enjoyable; the biggest problem with this film is that its quality was too inconsistent. Because of the big time gap between the original of the sequel, a large portion of the two hour running time is spent explaining and setting up the world in which the film exists; so audiences will be treated to a fast-paced and visually stunning action sequence, only for the pacing of the movie to come to a dead stop so a character can explain what just happened. As far as acting goes, Jeff Bridges’ is surprisingly strong in playing two different characters, but Garret Hedlund was just not engaging or entertaining enough to stand-out as the central protagonist. Now, in terms of special effects, the digital world created for Tron: Legacy was visually stunning, helping the audience believe that they had truly entered a videogame, but as is common in so many “3D” films, the potential 3D technology was largely underused. Plain and simple, Tron: Legacy is a good (not great) sci-fi movie that is sure to please audiences young and old alike, but given the hype surrounding this project, audiences deserved much more.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
In retrospect, Tron: Legacy was nowhere near as good as it could have been, but that is not to say that the end result wasn’t enjoyable; the biggest problem with this film is that its quality was too inconsistent. Because of the big time gap between the original of the sequel, a large portion of the two hour running time is spent explaining and setting up the world in which the film exists; so audiences will be treated to a fast-paced and visually stunning action sequence, only for the pacing of the movie to come to a dead stop so a character can explain what just happened. As far as acting goes, Jeff Bridges’ is surprisingly strong in playing two different characters, but Garret Hedlund was just not engaging or entertaining enough to stand-out as the central protagonist. Now, in terms of special effects, the digital world created for Tron: Legacy was visually stunning, helping the audience believe that they had truly entered a videogame, but as is common in so many “3D” films, the potential 3D technology was largely underused. Plain and simple, Tron: Legacy is a good (not great) sci-fi movie that is sure to please audiences young and old alike, but given the hype surrounding this project, audiences deserved much more.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Tron: Legacy - Full Review
Tron: Legacy - (December 17th, 2010): PG
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $44,026,211
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,026,211
Gross Revenue: $67,026,211
Budget: $170 million
Director: Joseph Kosinski
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, the biggest obstacle facing Tron: Legacy involves the fact that the original Tron was released decades ago, and even back then, it wasn’t that popular. Still, with today’s audiences, the idea of people existing as programs within a videogame was sure to resonate and draw strong crowds who would undoubtedly enjoy a visually stunning adventure, regardless of whether or not they remembered the original story. Once I saw the first trailers attached to everything from Alice in Wonderland to Resident Evil: Extinction, I did a little research and was shocked to discover the massive marketing plan Disney had prepared for Tron: Legacy…they were clearly gearing up the beginning of a massive franchise. In addition to the strong special effects promised to audiences, another strong draw for Tron: Legacy was the presence of crowd-pleaser Jeff Bridges, who would be reprising the characters he brought to life almost thirty years ago. As a notorious videogame enthusiast, needless to say I had my 3D glasses in-hand, ready for the digital adventure Disney had been preparing for years.
The world of the Tron franchise follows Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a brilliant software programmer who, in the first film, built a virtual domain within a videogame system that human beings can enter and fully interact with, a frontier known as The Grid. Within The Grid, computer programs appear as humans, and in an attempt to perfect his system, Flynn built two programs, a security program known as “Tron” and a development program known as “Clu,” Flynn’s identical digital representation within the system (also played by Bridges). Tron: Legacy picks up just as Flynn goes missing…fast forward twenty years and Flynn’s now-adult son Sam (Garret Hedlund, Eragon) is still haunted by his father’s disappearance. As fate would have it, Sam stumbles into The Grid, where Clu now rules with an iron fist and Flynn has been trapped for all this time. It is revealed that Clu betrayed both Flynn and Tron in an attempt to build the perfect system and has been trying to steal Flynn’s information disc (a literal disc that houses all of an individual’s collected knowledge) so that he can enter the real world and impose his rule on humanity. Now that Sam has entered The Grid, a temporary portal has been opened to our reality, so Sam must now work with his father and his father’s faithful apprentice, a program known as “Quorra” (Olivia Wilde, best known for her work as “13” on Fox’s House), in order to get to the portal before it closes and escape without Clu capturing Flynn and getting through to our world.
Well, as was expected, the best part of Tron: Legacy involved the action sequences, whose impressive graphics and energetic soundtrack listings truly brought the notion of existing within a videogame to life (electronic music duo Daft Punk composed the music and even cameo as DJs). The scenes where Sam and Clu battle in a light cycle race or engage in a mid-air dogfight with virtual fighter jets are just jaw-droppingly cool, there’s really no better way to describe the sequences. The other big surprise involves Jeff Bridges, who is an absolute scene-stealer as he plays both a young and old version of himself (Clu was created in the original Tron, and, unlike Flynn, does not age), one a hero, and the other a villain. Even Olivia Wilde is enjoyable as the spunky and determined Quorra, injecting the right amount of attitude and innocence into the film to balance the rest of the cast. As a PG film, Tron: Legacy’s audience will largely be comprised of children, but sci-fi and video game fans of all ages will find something in this Disney adventure to ignite their imaginations.
Unfortunately, every element that acts as a strength within Tron: Legacy also has a weaker aspect, which severely hinders the overall quality of the film. As impressive as the special effects were, they could have been better as they almost completely ignored the potential of 3D technology; some have called Tron: Legacy the “3D event of the year,” and that is a horribly inaccurate overstatement, as a majority of the film is in 2D, which makes paying for the 3D glasses largely a waste of money. You would think that a film about live-action videogames would represent the perfect avenue for 3D action…talk about a missed opportunity. And as good as Jeff Bridges is as Flynn and Clu, he completely overshadows Garret Hedlund, who, even though he is supposed to be the main protagonist, is so one-dimensional and unsympathetic that it is hard for the audience to get behind his character or regard him as a hero. Beyond these weaknesses, my biggest complaint about Tron: Legacy is the uneven pacing of the narrative, switching between fast-paced action sequences and painfully slow exposition dialogues so often that it becomes a chore to try and follow or remain engaged in the story. The story is good, but after two hours of trying to understand it, the ending just feels labored, confusing, and anti-climatic. And on a smaller note, if you’re not a fan of techno-music, the soundtrack can get old quickly; in one scene in particular, the music is so dominating that it causes the set to resemble nothing more than a bad Vegas nightclub. In the end, with as much as audiences were promised with Tron: Legacy, the end result was disappointing.
After the lackluster box office weekends that met The Tourist and the newest Narnia, hopes were high that Tron: Legacy would be able to kick-start the Holiday Movie Season, but after the combined cost of both the production and marketing budgets (approx. $270 million), a 3-day haul of $44 million is hardly impressive. With this massively hyped sequel, industry analysts were projecting a $50 million opening, at minimum, but now, Disney execs are a little panicked that a strong international performance is needed for the film to break even. In all likelihood, family-friendly Yogi Bear drew away a portion of the younger potential audience, with some parents questioning Tron: Legacy’s appropriateness for children, while the PG-rating deterred some older moviegoers. Still, despite some weak elements and a large uphill battle to turn a profit, Disney has produced an entertaining adventure worth seeing, just don’t expect anything revolutionary and forego the 3D glasses.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $44,026,211
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $44,026,211
Gross Revenue: $67,026,211
Budget: $170 million
Director: Joseph Kosinski
As I mentioned in the “Short and Sweet” review, the biggest obstacle facing Tron: Legacy involves the fact that the original Tron was released decades ago, and even back then, it wasn’t that popular. Still, with today’s audiences, the idea of people existing as programs within a videogame was sure to resonate and draw strong crowds who would undoubtedly enjoy a visually stunning adventure, regardless of whether or not they remembered the original story. Once I saw the first trailers attached to everything from Alice in Wonderland to Resident Evil: Extinction, I did a little research and was shocked to discover the massive marketing plan Disney had prepared for Tron: Legacy…they were clearly gearing up the beginning of a massive franchise. In addition to the strong special effects promised to audiences, another strong draw for Tron: Legacy was the presence of crowd-pleaser Jeff Bridges, who would be reprising the characters he brought to life almost thirty years ago. As a notorious videogame enthusiast, needless to say I had my 3D glasses in-hand, ready for the digital adventure Disney had been preparing for years.
The world of the Tron franchise follows Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a brilliant software programmer who, in the first film, built a virtual domain within a videogame system that human beings can enter and fully interact with, a frontier known as The Grid. Within The Grid, computer programs appear as humans, and in an attempt to perfect his system, Flynn built two programs, a security program known as “Tron” and a development program known as “Clu,” Flynn’s identical digital representation within the system (also played by Bridges). Tron: Legacy picks up just as Flynn goes missing…fast forward twenty years and Flynn’s now-adult son Sam (Garret Hedlund, Eragon) is still haunted by his father’s disappearance. As fate would have it, Sam stumbles into The Grid, where Clu now rules with an iron fist and Flynn has been trapped for all this time. It is revealed that Clu betrayed both Flynn and Tron in an attempt to build the perfect system and has been trying to steal Flynn’s information disc (a literal disc that houses all of an individual’s collected knowledge) so that he can enter the real world and impose his rule on humanity. Now that Sam has entered The Grid, a temporary portal has been opened to our reality, so Sam must now work with his father and his father’s faithful apprentice, a program known as “Quorra” (Olivia Wilde, best known for her work as “13” on Fox’s House), in order to get to the portal before it closes and escape without Clu capturing Flynn and getting through to our world.
Well, as was expected, the best part of Tron: Legacy involved the action sequences, whose impressive graphics and energetic soundtrack listings truly brought the notion of existing within a videogame to life (electronic music duo Daft Punk composed the music and even cameo as DJs). The scenes where Sam and Clu battle in a light cycle race or engage in a mid-air dogfight with virtual fighter jets are just jaw-droppingly cool, there’s really no better way to describe the sequences. The other big surprise involves Jeff Bridges, who is an absolute scene-stealer as he plays both a young and old version of himself (Clu was created in the original Tron, and, unlike Flynn, does not age), one a hero, and the other a villain. Even Olivia Wilde is enjoyable as the spunky and determined Quorra, injecting the right amount of attitude and innocence into the film to balance the rest of the cast. As a PG film, Tron: Legacy’s audience will largely be comprised of children, but sci-fi and video game fans of all ages will find something in this Disney adventure to ignite their imaginations.
Unfortunately, every element that acts as a strength within Tron: Legacy also has a weaker aspect, which severely hinders the overall quality of the film. As impressive as the special effects were, they could have been better as they almost completely ignored the potential of 3D technology; some have called Tron: Legacy the “3D event of the year,” and that is a horribly inaccurate overstatement, as a majority of the film is in 2D, which makes paying for the 3D glasses largely a waste of money. You would think that a film about live-action videogames would represent the perfect avenue for 3D action…talk about a missed opportunity. And as good as Jeff Bridges is as Flynn and Clu, he completely overshadows Garret Hedlund, who, even though he is supposed to be the main protagonist, is so one-dimensional and unsympathetic that it is hard for the audience to get behind his character or regard him as a hero. Beyond these weaknesses, my biggest complaint about Tron: Legacy is the uneven pacing of the narrative, switching between fast-paced action sequences and painfully slow exposition dialogues so often that it becomes a chore to try and follow or remain engaged in the story. The story is good, but after two hours of trying to understand it, the ending just feels labored, confusing, and anti-climatic. And on a smaller note, if you’re not a fan of techno-music, the soundtrack can get old quickly; in one scene in particular, the music is so dominating that it causes the set to resemble nothing more than a bad Vegas nightclub. In the end, with as much as audiences were promised with Tron: Legacy, the end result was disappointing.
After the lackluster box office weekends that met The Tourist and the newest Narnia, hopes were high that Tron: Legacy would be able to kick-start the Holiday Movie Season, but after the combined cost of both the production and marketing budgets (approx. $270 million), a 3-day haul of $44 million is hardly impressive. With this massively hyped sequel, industry analysts were projecting a $50 million opening, at minimum, but now, Disney execs are a little panicked that a strong international performance is needed for the film to break even. In all likelihood, family-friendly Yogi Bear drew away a portion of the younger potential audience, with some parents questioning Tron: Legacy’s appropriateness for children, while the PG-rating deterred some older moviegoers. Still, despite some weak elements and a large uphill battle to turn a profit, Disney has produced an entertaining adventure worth seeing, just don’t expect anything revolutionary and forego the 3D glasses.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
The Tourist: Short and Sweet
Though there is by no means a sure-fire formula for a successful movie, by all accounts The Tourist seemed to contain everything necessary to please audiences: exotic foreign setting, a plot filled with mystery and intrigue, and a pairing of two of Hollywood’s biggest A-list celebrities. When she’s not jetting around the globe as a UN Ambassador or maintaining a high-profile relationship with Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie has been receiving praise for recent hits such as Changeling or Salt, while Johnny Depp has been entertaining audiences with offbeat characters like Captain Jack Sparrow of The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise or The Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland; together, these two would be virtually unstoppable. Despite the potential draw of this film, marketing for The Tourist was surprisingly mild, with early trailers simply identifying that Depp and Jolie would be in a film that involved a case of mistaken identity. Still, when you consider the sheer star-power of The Tourist, aggressive marketing wasn’t really necessary; fans of both celebrities would undoubtedly want to see them work together in this newest adventure. Obviously, my hopes were very high for The Tourist.
As a member of both Depp and Jolie’s monumentally large fan-base, I hate to admit that I was thoroughly disappointed in The Tourist, which is plagued by a ridiculous plot, boring action sequences and characters, and a spectacular case of miscasting. Granted, a plot involving mistaken identity is bound to be a little misleading, but I found myself rolling my eyes and shaking my head in disbelief at the uneven and ridiculous story that audiences were expected to swallow. And, for a film billed as a romantic thriller, some of the “action” sequences present were horribly yawn-inducing, with the lead characters being chased by an embarrassingly unthreatening villain. To be fair, Angelina Jolie does what she can with film, sizzling onscreen as a mysterious and hypnotic femme fatale, but Depp’s character is such a departure from his usual roles that his presence just comes across as awkward. Devoted fans can usually be pretty forgiving when their favorite star makes a bad film, but I doubt anyone would disagree that The Tourist represents a definite step backwards for these two Hollywood juggernauts.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
As a member of both Depp and Jolie’s monumentally large fan-base, I hate to admit that I was thoroughly disappointed in The Tourist, which is plagued by a ridiculous plot, boring action sequences and characters, and a spectacular case of miscasting. Granted, a plot involving mistaken identity is bound to be a little misleading, but I found myself rolling my eyes and shaking my head in disbelief at the uneven and ridiculous story that audiences were expected to swallow. And, for a film billed as a romantic thriller, some of the “action” sequences present were horribly yawn-inducing, with the lead characters being chased by an embarrassingly unthreatening villain. To be fair, Angelina Jolie does what she can with film, sizzling onscreen as a mysterious and hypnotic femme fatale, but Depp’s character is such a departure from his usual roles that his presence just comes across as awkward. Devoted fans can usually be pretty forgiving when their favorite star makes a bad film, but I doubt anyone would disagree that The Tourist represents a definite step backwards for these two Hollywood juggernauts.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Low
The Tourist: Full Review
The Tourist - (December 10th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $16,472,458
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $30,791,000
Gross Revenue: $53,091,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
While I would love to tell you that this newest romantic thriller is a wholly original adventure for audiences, The Tourist is actually a remake of the 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer. Though the original hardly made headlines, some of the Hollywood talent originally attached to this project included Tom Cruise, Sam Worthington, and Charlize Theron, but once Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie settled into the lead roles, The Tourist generated massive media attention throughout its filming. With every entertainment news medium from Entertainment Weekly to Access Hollywood reporting on this first collaboration between A-listers Depp and Jolie, little else was needed to market the film; all audiences needed to know was the release date. For me, the strong emphasis on the foreign setting of the film alone was intriguing, because even though such a production decision has worked in the past, it is by no means a guarantee of success; filming in Beijing added an excellent dimension to this past summer’s The Karate Kid, but George Clooney made rural Italy look like the most boring place on earth in The American. At the very least, the promise of a mysterious and dangerous romance between two such high-profile celebrities made The Tourist an absolute must-see.
The Tourist opens with Scotland Yard officials following a mysterious woman named Elise Clifton-Ward (Jolie), who is the former lover of high-profile thief Alexander Pearce. While sitting at a café in Paris, Elise receives a letter from Alexander instructing her to board a train to Venice and pick out a man that the police will believe is him, as it is believed that Pearce has recently had a large amount of reconstructive surgery. While on the train, Elise picks out and engages an American tourist, Frank Tupelo (Depp), who is instantly attracted to the mysterious woman. Soon enough, because of Elise’s actions, Frank finds himself pursued by British agent John Acheson (Paul Bettany) and gangster Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff), both of whom believe Frank to be the famous criminal that they have been chasing for years. While Frank is left to sort through this case of mistaken identity, Elise finds herself developing feelings for the man she has put in harm’s way, and together the two must evade their pursuers and find the real Alexander Pearce.
Though there is a veritable laundry list of negative aspects to this film, the one element that saves The Tourist from being an absolute disaster is Angelina Jolie. As the seductive and hypnotic femme fatale Elise, audiences are engaged by Jolie’s every move onscreen, making it very easy to understand how someone as naïve as Depp’s Frank could follow her into a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, this is about as far as the chemistry goes between Jolie and Depp, because it almost seems like The Tourist couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a romance or a thriller; rather than successfully blending the two genres, the film switches between mushy proclamations of love and tense chase sequences so often that the budding romance between the lead characters feels forced rather than natural. Audiences are just supposed to accept that Jolie and Depp belong together without any of the plot elements truly backing up that conclusion…by film’s end; Elise’s proclamation of love for Frank is so far out of left field that it is near-impossible for the audience to accept. Now, this lack of chemistry has led many to criticize Depp’s performance, but I believe that rather than this being a representation of bad acting, The Tourist simply showcases a case of bad casting. Johnny Depp is famous for offbeat and outrageous characters like Captain Jack Sparrow, but Frank is so horribly vanilla that Depp feels simply out-of-place in this bland role, and that’s a shame.
Aside from the uneven acting and chemistry between the A-listers, the biggest problem with The Tourist still involves the weak story elements. As I mentioned earlier, Frank is being mistaken for a high-profile criminal and is being chased by both the police and ruthless gangsters, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such potentially thrilling elements presented in such an un-engaging manner. For instance, at one point there is a boat chase through the Venice canals that is shockingly boring as Depp and Jolie try to escape embarrassingly incompetent henchmen. The film’s primary antagonist, gangster Reginald Shaw, tries to be as threatening as possible, but even when he’s holding a knife to Jolie’s throat or a gun to Depp’s head, the audience still feels no sense of danger or urgency. The Tourist also tries to throw in a few twists to keep the audience interested, but they are so predictable and lazy that anyone who has seen a spy or action film can see them coming a mile away. In the end, even the combined star power of Depp and Jolie can’t save a film as flawed as The Tourist.
Well, early critical reviews were decidedly unkind to The Tourist, and judging from the opening weekend box-office numbers, audiences weren’t much more sympathetic. In light of the early negative feedback, Columbia had actually dampened its projections for The Tourist’s first weekend in theaters; studio execs were hoping for $20 million, which is low considering the two film leads, so a performance of under $17 million is undoubtedly embarrassing. Admittedly, The Tourist opened up against the new entry in the Narnia series, but the combined performance for both films was still weak, signaling a poor start to the Holiday Movie Season. Even though Jolie was easily the best part of this film, The Tourist still represents the worst start for both of the high-profile stars in years, and with so many new films coming in the next few weeks, most accompanied by buzz of Oscar-worthy performances, it is unlikely that Columbia Pictures will recover it’s $100 million production budget. Regardless of how you feel about Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, it’s a better use of your time and money to wait for The Tourist to hit Red Box or Netflix.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $16,472,458
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $30,791,000
Gross Revenue: $53,091,000
Budget: $100 million
Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
While I would love to tell you that this newest romantic thriller is a wholly original adventure for audiences, The Tourist is actually a remake of the 2005 French film Anthony Zimmer. Though the original hardly made headlines, some of the Hollywood talent originally attached to this project included Tom Cruise, Sam Worthington, and Charlize Theron, but once Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie settled into the lead roles, The Tourist generated massive media attention throughout its filming. With every entertainment news medium from Entertainment Weekly to Access Hollywood reporting on this first collaboration between A-listers Depp and Jolie, little else was needed to market the film; all audiences needed to know was the release date. For me, the strong emphasis on the foreign setting of the film alone was intriguing, because even though such a production decision has worked in the past, it is by no means a guarantee of success; filming in Beijing added an excellent dimension to this past summer’s The Karate Kid, but George Clooney made rural Italy look like the most boring place on earth in The American. At the very least, the promise of a mysterious and dangerous romance between two such high-profile celebrities made The Tourist an absolute must-see.
The Tourist opens with Scotland Yard officials following a mysterious woman named Elise Clifton-Ward (Jolie), who is the former lover of high-profile thief Alexander Pearce. While sitting at a café in Paris, Elise receives a letter from Alexander instructing her to board a train to Venice and pick out a man that the police will believe is him, as it is believed that Pearce has recently had a large amount of reconstructive surgery. While on the train, Elise picks out and engages an American tourist, Frank Tupelo (Depp), who is instantly attracted to the mysterious woman. Soon enough, because of Elise’s actions, Frank finds himself pursued by British agent John Acheson (Paul Bettany) and gangster Reginald Shaw (Steven Berkoff), both of whom believe Frank to be the famous criminal that they have been chasing for years. While Frank is left to sort through this case of mistaken identity, Elise finds herself developing feelings for the man she has put in harm’s way, and together the two must evade their pursuers and find the real Alexander Pearce.
Though there is a veritable laundry list of negative aspects to this film, the one element that saves The Tourist from being an absolute disaster is Angelina Jolie. As the seductive and hypnotic femme fatale Elise, audiences are engaged by Jolie’s every move onscreen, making it very easy to understand how someone as naïve as Depp’s Frank could follow her into a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, this is about as far as the chemistry goes between Jolie and Depp, because it almost seems like The Tourist couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a romance or a thriller; rather than successfully blending the two genres, the film switches between mushy proclamations of love and tense chase sequences so often that the budding romance between the lead characters feels forced rather than natural. Audiences are just supposed to accept that Jolie and Depp belong together without any of the plot elements truly backing up that conclusion…by film’s end; Elise’s proclamation of love for Frank is so far out of left field that it is near-impossible for the audience to accept. Now, this lack of chemistry has led many to criticize Depp’s performance, but I believe that rather than this being a representation of bad acting, The Tourist simply showcases a case of bad casting. Johnny Depp is famous for offbeat and outrageous characters like Captain Jack Sparrow, but Frank is so horribly vanilla that Depp feels simply out-of-place in this bland role, and that’s a shame.
Aside from the uneven acting and chemistry between the A-listers, the biggest problem with The Tourist still involves the weak story elements. As I mentioned earlier, Frank is being mistaken for a high-profile criminal and is being chased by both the police and ruthless gangsters, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen such potentially thrilling elements presented in such an un-engaging manner. For instance, at one point there is a boat chase through the Venice canals that is shockingly boring as Depp and Jolie try to escape embarrassingly incompetent henchmen. The film’s primary antagonist, gangster Reginald Shaw, tries to be as threatening as possible, but even when he’s holding a knife to Jolie’s throat or a gun to Depp’s head, the audience still feels no sense of danger or urgency. The Tourist also tries to throw in a few twists to keep the audience interested, but they are so predictable and lazy that anyone who has seen a spy or action film can see them coming a mile away. In the end, even the combined star power of Depp and Jolie can’t save a film as flawed as The Tourist.
Well, early critical reviews were decidedly unkind to The Tourist, and judging from the opening weekend box-office numbers, audiences weren’t much more sympathetic. In light of the early negative feedback, Columbia had actually dampened its projections for The Tourist’s first weekend in theaters; studio execs were hoping for $20 million, which is low considering the two film leads, so a performance of under $17 million is undoubtedly embarrassing. Admittedly, The Tourist opened up against the new entry in the Narnia series, but the combined performance for both films was still weak, signaling a poor start to the Holiday Movie Season. Even though Jolie was easily the best part of this film, The Tourist still represents the worst start for both of the high-profile stars in years, and with so many new films coming in the next few weeks, most accompanied by buzz of Oscar-worthy performances, it is unlikely that Columbia Pictures will recover it’s $100 million production budget. Regardless of how you feel about Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, it’s a better use of your time and money to wait for The Tourist to hit Red Box or Netflix.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Burlesque: Short and Sweet
Though many would have you believe that musical films have a limited appeal, the reality is that the genre has been growing in popularity over the years, blending songs with everything from sex, action, and horror to produce both critically and commercially successful films. Yes, we all know how popular the High School Musical franchise is, but regardless of varying public opinion of Zac Efron’s acting talent, few can deny the quality or success of such titles as Moulin Rouge!, Chicago, Dreamgirls, or Sweeney Todd. Screen Gems clearly wanted to play-off the strong draw of a good musical with its newest release, Burlesque, and in pairing musical icons like Cher and Christina Aguilera, its obvious that the studio was swinging for the fence. Given that this would be Aguilera’s first venture into feature film, marketing efforts clearly tried to position Burlesque as a “passing of the torch” moment between a screen legend and a popular newcomer. As a fan of both women, I knew at the very least, I could expect some spectacular musical performances in Burlesque.
In terms of song quality and performance, Burlesque is absolutely phenomenal, but unfortunately, with the absence of a strong story, this newest entry in the musical genre is little more than an extended music video. Christina more than showcases her vocal talent, and Cher once again proves why she is both an award-winning actress and the unquestioned “Goddess of Pop.” Watching the interaction between these two is easily one of the most entertaining aspects of Burlesque, and audiences will appreciate the significance of Cher coaching an up-and-coming performer. Aside from the strong music though, the story of Burlesque is still painfully formulaic and predictable, to the point where I simply found myself wishing the characters would stop talking and start singing again. If you are a fan of Cher or Christina, or if you are simply looking some entertaining musical performances, then Burlesque is definitely worth seeing, but if you’re looking for anything beyond just music, then this film will clearly fall short.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
In terms of song quality and performance, Burlesque is absolutely phenomenal, but unfortunately, with the absence of a strong story, this newest entry in the musical genre is little more than an extended music video. Christina more than showcases her vocal talent, and Cher once again proves why she is both an award-winning actress and the unquestioned “Goddess of Pop.” Watching the interaction between these two is easily one of the most entertaining aspects of Burlesque, and audiences will appreciate the significance of Cher coaching an up-and-coming performer. Aside from the strong music though, the story of Burlesque is still painfully formulaic and predictable, to the point where I simply found myself wishing the characters would stop talking and start singing again. If you are a fan of Cher or Christina, or if you are simply looking some entertaining musical performances, then Burlesque is definitely worth seeing, but if you’re looking for anything beyond just music, then this film will clearly fall short.
For more information, please read the full review.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Burlesque: Full Review
Burlesque - (November 24th, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Screen Gems (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $11,947,744
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $28,221,258
Gross Revenue: $28,221,258
Budget: $55 million
Director: Steven Antin
When I first saw the trailer for Burlesque, I admit that I was cautiously optimistic; musical films have been growing in both popularity and quality over the years, but there were still some elements working against the potential of this newest entry. Cher is an Academy Award-winning actress and Grammy Award-winning performer, but she hadn’t been on the silver screen since 2003’s forgettable Stuck on You, so this prolonged absence from the spotlight meant that her appeal was likely going to be limited to older audiences and dedicated fans. As for Christina Aguilera, I’ve always considered her one of the best singers in the music industry, but the fact that this was her first film brought up echoes of other pop stars who had ventured into acting in the past with disastrous results…seriously, I’m sure we’d all like to forget (and most indeed have forgotten) Britney Spears in Crossroads and Mariah Carey in Glitter. Still, early trailers promised movie-goers strong musical performances, and Screen Gems clearly focused its marketing efforts towards an appropriate target audience. Leading up to the film’s release, Aguilera was performing music from the soundtrack on everything from The Ellen DeGeneres Show to the American Music Awards and the finale of Dancing with the Stars. At the very least, the film’s tag-line of “It takes a Legend to make a Star,” highlighted the main draw of Burlesque for music fans: industry icons Cher and Christina Aguilera would be interacting and performing music together for the first time. Though I’m clearly not in the target audience, as a fan of both performers, I decided to give Burlesque a chance.
Burlesque tells the story of small-town waitress Ali Rose (Aguilera), who decides to follow her dreams of performing as a dancer in Los Angeles. Though initially unsuccessful in her pursuits, Ali stumbles across The Burlesque Lounge, a popular musical performing theater and club run by proprietor Tess (Cher) and sassy stage manager Sean (Stanley Tucci, best known for The Devil Wears Prada). Though she is initially dismissed, Ali eventually earns a place in the production, striking a friendship with club bartender and musician Jack (Cam Gigandet, of Twilight fame) and building a rivalry with troubled performer Nikki (Kristen Bell, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Ali quickly realizes that all the dancers lip-sync their performances, but once Tess discovers her powerful singing voice, the former waitress becomes a headlining sensation. Unfortunately, the newfound success and increased popularity of the club are not enough to remedy its long-standing financial troubles, and Tess fears she may soon be forced to sell her legacy to entrepreneur Marcus Gerber (Eric Dane from Grey’s Anatomy). Ali and Tess must work together in order to help save the establishment that they both cherish.
Well, it should come as no surprise that the strongest part of Burlesque was the music, as both Cher and Christina showcase their immense talent with powerful songs and energetic performances. Christina’s trademark vocal power comes through on every performance, and Cher delivers one song that will likely earn a nomination at this year’s Academy Awards. From an acting perspective, I really enjoyed the attitude that Christina brought to her character, which helped prove that she can hold her own as an actress; but the real strength of Burlesque has to do with the interaction between Cher and Christina, which has a unique energy to it, in effect helping audiences to look past the characters and just appreciate the significance of these two icons being on-screen together. I also feel that I should mention that Burlesque definitely makes efforts to appeal beyond the female demographic; guys usually roll their eyes at the thought of going to a musical film, but they should remember that, by definition, burlesque performances are supposed to be suggestive and sexy, and this film offers more than just music to keep male moviegoers happy. In the end, Burlesque delivered to audiences exactly what it promised, and fans of both Cher and Christina will delight in this newest musical film.
Unfortunately, although I enjoyed the music of Burlesque, the reality is that the film focuses so strongly on the music that the end result is little more than an extended music video promoting Christina Aguilera. The first few performances showcase the different burlesque dancers and their unique style of performance (which was highly enjoyable), but by the time Christina takes center stage, the other dancers are completely ignored, and it feels like we are simply watching one of Aguilera’s concerts. I was also supremely disappointed that Cher only performed two songs the entire film, a clear underuse of her talent. Aside from the focus of the music, another blatant weak point in Burlesque has to do with the story, which is so formulaic and predictable that it is hard for the audience to get invested at all. A small town singer making it big, struggling with newfound fame, and building a relationship with a fellow artist is nothing new, but even some of the attempted unique elements fell flat. Burlesque tries to paint Eric Dane’s character as sinister because he tries to buy the struggling club, but he just doesn’t come across as a villain, and Tess and Ali’s final solution to save the club is so obvious and uncreative that I doubt anyone cared that they actually solved the film’s central conflict. The presence of actors Alan Cummings and Peter Gallagher also felt wasted; Burlesque had the necessary acting talent to be a much better film, it just didn’t capitalize on its potential.
Even though Burlesque had the benefit of opening during the five-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend, it still faced significant competition from three other new releases and Harry Potter’s second weekend at the box-office. With romantic comedies, action adventures, epic fantasies, and children’s animations all vying for audience attention, Burlesque was still able to pull in nearly $12 million as a musical film, which is very respectable. Unfortunately, Burlesque represents Screen Gems’ second most expensive film behind the Resident Evil franchise, and with audience numbers dropping, it is likely that the studio will lose money on this newest release. Though I probably enjoyed Burlesque more than I should have, the fact remains that there are some pretty big weaknesses in this film, which cannot be ignored when you consider the high quality of some of the other more recent entries in the musical genre. Despite my criticisms, if all you’re looking for is some good music from Cher and Christina Aguilera, then I’m sure you will enjoy Burlesque.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Screen Gems (subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $11,947,744
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $28,221,258
Gross Revenue: $28,221,258
Budget: $55 million
Director: Steven Antin
When I first saw the trailer for Burlesque, I admit that I was cautiously optimistic; musical films have been growing in both popularity and quality over the years, but there were still some elements working against the potential of this newest entry. Cher is an Academy Award-winning actress and Grammy Award-winning performer, but she hadn’t been on the silver screen since 2003’s forgettable Stuck on You, so this prolonged absence from the spotlight meant that her appeal was likely going to be limited to older audiences and dedicated fans. As for Christina Aguilera, I’ve always considered her one of the best singers in the music industry, but the fact that this was her first film brought up echoes of other pop stars who had ventured into acting in the past with disastrous results…seriously, I’m sure we’d all like to forget (and most indeed have forgotten) Britney Spears in Crossroads and Mariah Carey in Glitter. Still, early trailers promised movie-goers strong musical performances, and Screen Gems clearly focused its marketing efforts towards an appropriate target audience. Leading up to the film’s release, Aguilera was performing music from the soundtrack on everything from The Ellen DeGeneres Show to the American Music Awards and the finale of Dancing with the Stars. At the very least, the film’s tag-line of “It takes a Legend to make a Star,” highlighted the main draw of Burlesque for music fans: industry icons Cher and Christina Aguilera would be interacting and performing music together for the first time. Though I’m clearly not in the target audience, as a fan of both performers, I decided to give Burlesque a chance.
Burlesque tells the story of small-town waitress Ali Rose (Aguilera), who decides to follow her dreams of performing as a dancer in Los Angeles. Though initially unsuccessful in her pursuits, Ali stumbles across The Burlesque Lounge, a popular musical performing theater and club run by proprietor Tess (Cher) and sassy stage manager Sean (Stanley Tucci, best known for The Devil Wears Prada). Though she is initially dismissed, Ali eventually earns a place in the production, striking a friendship with club bartender and musician Jack (Cam Gigandet, of Twilight fame) and building a rivalry with troubled performer Nikki (Kristen Bell, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall). Ali quickly realizes that all the dancers lip-sync their performances, but once Tess discovers her powerful singing voice, the former waitress becomes a headlining sensation. Unfortunately, the newfound success and increased popularity of the club are not enough to remedy its long-standing financial troubles, and Tess fears she may soon be forced to sell her legacy to entrepreneur Marcus Gerber (Eric Dane from Grey’s Anatomy). Ali and Tess must work together in order to help save the establishment that they both cherish.
Well, it should come as no surprise that the strongest part of Burlesque was the music, as both Cher and Christina showcase their immense talent with powerful songs and energetic performances. Christina’s trademark vocal power comes through on every performance, and Cher delivers one song that will likely earn a nomination at this year’s Academy Awards. From an acting perspective, I really enjoyed the attitude that Christina brought to her character, which helped prove that she can hold her own as an actress; but the real strength of Burlesque has to do with the interaction between Cher and Christina, which has a unique energy to it, in effect helping audiences to look past the characters and just appreciate the significance of these two icons being on-screen together. I also feel that I should mention that Burlesque definitely makes efforts to appeal beyond the female demographic; guys usually roll their eyes at the thought of going to a musical film, but they should remember that, by definition, burlesque performances are supposed to be suggestive and sexy, and this film offers more than just music to keep male moviegoers happy. In the end, Burlesque delivered to audiences exactly what it promised, and fans of both Cher and Christina will delight in this newest musical film.
Unfortunately, although I enjoyed the music of Burlesque, the reality is that the film focuses so strongly on the music that the end result is little more than an extended music video promoting Christina Aguilera. The first few performances showcase the different burlesque dancers and their unique style of performance (which was highly enjoyable), but by the time Christina takes center stage, the other dancers are completely ignored, and it feels like we are simply watching one of Aguilera’s concerts. I was also supremely disappointed that Cher only performed two songs the entire film, a clear underuse of her talent. Aside from the focus of the music, another blatant weak point in Burlesque has to do with the story, which is so formulaic and predictable that it is hard for the audience to get invested at all. A small town singer making it big, struggling with newfound fame, and building a relationship with a fellow artist is nothing new, but even some of the attempted unique elements fell flat. Burlesque tries to paint Eric Dane’s character as sinister because he tries to buy the struggling club, but he just doesn’t come across as a villain, and Tess and Ali’s final solution to save the club is so obvious and uncreative that I doubt anyone cared that they actually solved the film’s central conflict. The presence of actors Alan Cummings and Peter Gallagher also felt wasted; Burlesque had the necessary acting talent to be a much better film, it just didn’t capitalize on its potential.
Even though Burlesque had the benefit of opening during the five-day Thanksgiving holiday weekend, it still faced significant competition from three other new releases and Harry Potter’s second weekend at the box-office. With romantic comedies, action adventures, epic fantasies, and children’s animations all vying for audience attention, Burlesque was still able to pull in nearly $12 million as a musical film, which is very respectable. Unfortunately, Burlesque represents Screen Gems’ second most expensive film behind the Resident Evil franchise, and with audience numbers dropping, it is likely that the studio will lose money on this newest release. Though I probably enjoyed Burlesque more than I should have, the fact remains that there are some pretty big weaknesses in this film, which cannot be ignored when you consider the high quality of some of the other more recent entries in the musical genre. Despite my criticisms, if all you’re looking for is some good music from Cher and Christina Aguilera, then I’m sure you will enjoy Burlesque.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)