Hollywood has never been known to back down from the opportunity to remake a film, whether the update is welcome and genuinely noteworthy (Fright Night), or audiences are simply unaware that an original version of the story presented already exists (Straw Dogs)…still, there are some films that are so treasured by fans that it seems almost blasphemy to touch the revered material. As far as 80’s teen films go, Footloose is nothing short of a classic, having launched Kevin Bacon’s career, generated iconic characters, and offered one of the greatest soundtracks of all-time. The final dancing scene accompanied by Kenny Loggins’ “Footloose” is one of my favorite sequences in all of film, and I know countless others who adore the original film, so I couldn’t believe that Paramount had the guts to try and generate a remake. Granted, I wasn’t convinced that a story about dancing being outlawed would resonate with today’s audiences, but maybe a young cast could work with an upbeat soundtrack and impressive choreography to faithfully update the original. Needless to say, this newest dance film would have something to prove to audiences, and it represented one hell of a gamble for filmmakers…I could only hope that things didn’t end up in disaster.
Purists of the 1984 original will be pleased with Footloose, as it is a very faithful adaptation that pays respect to the original themes, but just as I feared, the central conflict presented just does not resonate with current society. As a scene-for-scene remake, there is a certain amount of nostalgia in seeing a familiar story retold, but the idea of dancing being outlawed today is as unbelievable as it is ridiculous…I can see how we bought into it nearly thirty years ago, but genuine connectivity to the audience has now all but vanished. In terms of the cast, I respect Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough’s ability to take on the iconic roles made famous by Kevin Bacon and Lori Singer and add-in some individual flair, but Miles Teller is such a carbon-copy of the late Chris Penn that it is a little creepy. One element sure to anger fans is the new soundtrack, where a number of the classic songs have been remade, but most, if not all, of the energy and fun of the original was lost in the transition…if it’s not broken, why fix it? In the end, if you are a fan of the original, there is an almost necessity to see Footloose, but if you are someone unfamiliar with the story, there is little presented worthy to draw in and hold new fans.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Footloose: Full Review
Footloose - (October 14, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $15,556,113
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $30,948,517
Gross Revenue: $36,948,517
Production Budget: $24 million
Director: Craig Brewer
There are very few instances of genuine cinematic common knowledge, like Christopher Reeve playing the original Superman or Han Solo being a central character of the Star Wars universe, but absolutely everyone knows that 1984’s Footloose is the film that made Kevin Bacon famous. Kenny Loggins’ cover of the title song has also been played at nearly every dance and wedding over the past two decades, so calling Footloose a classic is anything but an exaggeration. Along with countless fans, I was understandably skeptical when it was first announced that Paramount would be releasing a remake with largely unknown actors assuming iconic roles; true, Dennis Quaid is a Hollywood veteran and Julianne Hough is known for her work on Dancing with the Stars, but nearly everyone had doubts concerning Kenny Wormald as the lead character, especially when Zac Efron was the original casting choice. Between the Step Up franchise and numerous reality series, the dance genre is undeniably popular among audiences today, so there was certain logic in revisiting the familiar, but there was no guarantee that a storyline popular nearly thirty years ago would resonate with today’s moviegoers. Paramount certainly could count on the curiosity of fans of the original to fill theaters, but there was still no guarantee that this generation’s Footloose could match the success associated with the 80’s powerhouse.
Offering no drastic deviations from the original, Footloose introduces audiences to young Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald), an upbeat Boston teenager who has just moved to the small town of Bomont, Georgia, a restrictive southern community that has banned all dancing and rock music. The chief proponent behind this oppressive law is the town reverend, Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid), who lost his son in a tragic car accident five years ago that he blames on alcohol, corruptive music, and lewd dancing. Soon enough, as an outsider, Ren runs afoul of a number of townspeople, including Rev. Moore, but he soon makes friends with fellow high school student, Willard Hewitt (Miles Teller). Ren also catches the eye of Rev. Moore’s rebellious daughter, Ariel (Julianne Hough), who has been acting out since her brothers death and causes even more trouble for Ren. Tired of feeling like an outsider, Ren decides to petition the town council to have the dancing ban removed, so that he and the rest of the high school’s senior class will be able to hold a prom dance, which serves as far more of a challenge than he ever expected.
Easily the best aspect of this Footloose is sheer nostalgia, as it is just pleasant to see a familiar story revisited for a new generation; Ren’s dancing tantrum at the mill, Ariel’s red cowboy boots, Willard’s dancing lessons and hair-trigger temper…it’s all there. At the very least, filmmakers were able to dodge a bullet from purist fans, who I’m sure would have rioted if any significant changes had been made to the storyline. With the young cast, it was refreshing to see Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough successfully tackle iconic roles; as such a demonstration of talent may foreshadow significant future success for the actors. Both Wormald and Hough were surprisingly able to add some individual flair to their characters, as Ren’s family conflict takes on more of a tragic tone and Ariel’s hell-raising behavior receives far clearer justification. Unfortunately, producing a faithful adaptation is a double-edged sword, as both adherence to the source material and deviations from the familiar caused significant problems for this remake.
With a few minor exceptions, Footloose is scene-for-scene identical to the 1984 original, meaning that this film showcases limited creativity, offers little surprise, and largely comes across as lazy. One instance of the carbon-copy nature of this film is Miles Teller as Ren’s sidekick, who is so identical to the late Chris Penn in looks, mannerism, and speaking style, that it almost seems like a genuine case of reincarnation; I understand that purists don’t want too much deviation from the original, but when you produce something this close, what is the point of making another film at all? I mentioned that there are a few small changes to the story that are understandable to update for modern audiences, but one big change that makes absolutely no sense is the soundtrack, which morphs classic songs that shouldn’t be touched at all…either pick new songs or leave the old ones alone. Another key justification against this remake involves the lack of a genuinely relatable theme…in 1984, you could accept a small town outlawing dancing, but in today’s politically-correct, legal-loophole world, it is utterly ridiculous when Ren gets pulled over and ticketed for playing music, and his angry dancing reaction is equally foolish. In the end, this Footloose failed to meet the burden of proof that would be needed to fully justify a remake, especially when nothing truly special is offered.
In a incredibly close call, Real Steel barely edged out Footloose in this upbeat remake’s opening weekend, taking the top spot with just under a $1 million edge. A second place ranking with over $15 million demonstrates a considerable amount of audience interest in this update of a classic, which is understandable when one considers the sheer volume of fans that still tap their feet uncontrollably when the Kenny Loggins song starts playing. The international haul for Footloose has been less than stellar, but such a fact is not that surprising, as it is hard enough for domestic audiences to relate to this dance film, but Paramount has little to worry about, as the remake has already turned a profit. While I don’t expect Kenny Wormald to do much beyond the dancing genre, it will not be that surprising to see the sexy and sassy Julianne Hough establish more of a presence on the big screen. If you consider 1984’s Footloose as one of your favorite films, this remake is well-worth seeing and will not disrespect the hallowed original, but for everyone else, you cannot expect this film to offering anything special at the theater.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $15,556,113
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $30,948,517
Gross Revenue: $36,948,517
Production Budget: $24 million
Director: Craig Brewer
There are very few instances of genuine cinematic common knowledge, like Christopher Reeve playing the original Superman or Han Solo being a central character of the Star Wars universe, but absolutely everyone knows that 1984’s Footloose is the film that made Kevin Bacon famous. Kenny Loggins’ cover of the title song has also been played at nearly every dance and wedding over the past two decades, so calling Footloose a classic is anything but an exaggeration. Along with countless fans, I was understandably skeptical when it was first announced that Paramount would be releasing a remake with largely unknown actors assuming iconic roles; true, Dennis Quaid is a Hollywood veteran and Julianne Hough is known for her work on Dancing with the Stars, but nearly everyone had doubts concerning Kenny Wormald as the lead character, especially when Zac Efron was the original casting choice. Between the Step Up franchise and numerous reality series, the dance genre is undeniably popular among audiences today, so there was certain logic in revisiting the familiar, but there was no guarantee that a storyline popular nearly thirty years ago would resonate with today’s moviegoers. Paramount certainly could count on the curiosity of fans of the original to fill theaters, but there was still no guarantee that this generation’s Footloose could match the success associated with the 80’s powerhouse.
Offering no drastic deviations from the original, Footloose introduces audiences to young Ren McCormack (Kenny Wormald), an upbeat Boston teenager who has just moved to the small town of Bomont, Georgia, a restrictive southern community that has banned all dancing and rock music. The chief proponent behind this oppressive law is the town reverend, Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid), who lost his son in a tragic car accident five years ago that he blames on alcohol, corruptive music, and lewd dancing. Soon enough, as an outsider, Ren runs afoul of a number of townspeople, including Rev. Moore, but he soon makes friends with fellow high school student, Willard Hewitt (Miles Teller). Ren also catches the eye of Rev. Moore’s rebellious daughter, Ariel (Julianne Hough), who has been acting out since her brothers death and causes even more trouble for Ren. Tired of feeling like an outsider, Ren decides to petition the town council to have the dancing ban removed, so that he and the rest of the high school’s senior class will be able to hold a prom dance, which serves as far more of a challenge than he ever expected.
Easily the best aspect of this Footloose is sheer nostalgia, as it is just pleasant to see a familiar story revisited for a new generation; Ren’s dancing tantrum at the mill, Ariel’s red cowboy boots, Willard’s dancing lessons and hair-trigger temper…it’s all there. At the very least, filmmakers were able to dodge a bullet from purist fans, who I’m sure would have rioted if any significant changes had been made to the storyline. With the young cast, it was refreshing to see Kenny Wormald and Julianne Hough successfully tackle iconic roles; as such a demonstration of talent may foreshadow significant future success for the actors. Both Wormald and Hough were surprisingly able to add some individual flair to their characters, as Ren’s family conflict takes on more of a tragic tone and Ariel’s hell-raising behavior receives far clearer justification. Unfortunately, producing a faithful adaptation is a double-edged sword, as both adherence to the source material and deviations from the familiar caused significant problems for this remake.
With a few minor exceptions, Footloose is scene-for-scene identical to the 1984 original, meaning that this film showcases limited creativity, offers little surprise, and largely comes across as lazy. One instance of the carbon-copy nature of this film is Miles Teller as Ren’s sidekick, who is so identical to the late Chris Penn in looks, mannerism, and speaking style, that it almost seems like a genuine case of reincarnation; I understand that purists don’t want too much deviation from the original, but when you produce something this close, what is the point of making another film at all? I mentioned that there are a few small changes to the story that are understandable to update for modern audiences, but one big change that makes absolutely no sense is the soundtrack, which morphs classic songs that shouldn’t be touched at all…either pick new songs or leave the old ones alone. Another key justification against this remake involves the lack of a genuinely relatable theme…in 1984, you could accept a small town outlawing dancing, but in today’s politically-correct, legal-loophole world, it is utterly ridiculous when Ren gets pulled over and ticketed for playing music, and his angry dancing reaction is equally foolish. In the end, this Footloose failed to meet the burden of proof that would be needed to fully justify a remake, especially when nothing truly special is offered.
In a incredibly close call, Real Steel barely edged out Footloose in this upbeat remake’s opening weekend, taking the top spot with just under a $1 million edge. A second place ranking with over $15 million demonstrates a considerable amount of audience interest in this update of a classic, which is understandable when one considers the sheer volume of fans that still tap their feet uncontrollably when the Kenny Loggins song starts playing. The international haul for Footloose has been less than stellar, but such a fact is not that surprising, as it is hard enough for domestic audiences to relate to this dance film, but Paramount has little to worry about, as the remake has already turned a profit. While I don’t expect Kenny Wormald to do much beyond the dancing genre, it will not be that surprising to see the sexy and sassy Julianne Hough establish more of a presence on the big screen. If you consider 1984’s Footloose as one of your favorite films, this remake is well-worth seeing and will not disrespect the hallowed original, but for everyone else, you cannot expect this film to offering anything special at the theater.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Ides of March: Short and Sweet
After Crazy, Stupid, Love. and Drive, Ryan Gosling’s career and popularity in Hollywood has been spreading like wildfire, and with this newest project, the young star would be able to spread his acting range even farther. Political drama has never been my genre of choice, but with a powerhouse cast and George Clooney in the driver’s seat, The Ides of March had all the makings of a classic. Philip Seymour Hoffman may not be one of the most prevalent actors in Hollywood, but when he makes a film, you damn well better pay attention…add in award-winners like Paul Giamatti and Marisa Tomei, and I was sold. As the opening film of the 68th Venice International Film Festival and an entry in the 2011 Toronto International Film Festival, critical favor for The Ides of March was a virtual certainty, so it looked like Columbia Pictures would have little trouble selling the project to mass audiences. I still wasn’t exactly sure what to expect in regards to this positioned thriller, but I had enough faith in the filmmakers to give The Ides of March a fair chance.
Smart, well-paced, and mesmerizing, The Ides of March is an unbelievably strong film, with each member of the cast proving exactly why they are famous and people pay money to watch them perform. Gosling shines as the idealistic campaign manager confronted with the harsh and unforgiving reality of politics, while Clooney and Giamatti engage a dark duality that serves as a pleasant surprise. With the understandably complicated and charged subject material that would accompany a storyline involving a presidential primary election, the film could have easily lost the attention of more casual audiences, but the dialogue and stylish direction help keep everything engaging. If anything, the overall theme is slightly predictable and little too pessimistic, but even a slightly exaggerated take on reality can be entertaining. Plain and simple, with such a popular cast executing a thoroughly enjoyable film, The Ides of March should not be missed by anyone.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Smart, well-paced, and mesmerizing, The Ides of March is an unbelievably strong film, with each member of the cast proving exactly why they are famous and people pay money to watch them perform. Gosling shines as the idealistic campaign manager confronted with the harsh and unforgiving reality of politics, while Clooney and Giamatti engage a dark duality that serves as a pleasant surprise. With the understandably complicated and charged subject material that would accompany a storyline involving a presidential primary election, the film could have easily lost the attention of more casual audiences, but the dialogue and stylish direction help keep everything engaging. If anything, the overall theme is slightly predictable and little too pessimistic, but even a slightly exaggerated take on reality can be entertaining. Plain and simple, with such a popular cast executing a thoroughly enjoyable film, The Ides of March should not be missed by anyone.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
The Ides of March: Full Review
The Ides of March - (October 7, 2011): R
Distributor: Colombia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $10,470,143
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $29,159,326
Gross Revenue: $29,159,326
Production Budget: $12.5 million
Director: George Clooney
Because it is an adaptation of the 2008 play Farragut North, based on its title alone, The Ides of March really gives audiences no hints in terms of subject matter, but trailers promised a significantly mature story. It has been a while since a genuine political drama has charmed audiences, but with an ambitious and well-regarded cast that included A-listers like George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei, The Ides of March would be sure to draw a crowd. In all honesty, Colombia Pictures really did not have that large of a challenge in selling this film, as the story of a idealistic political candidate would resonate in a time of political turmoil, while a tagline like “Ambition Seduces. Power Corrupts” promised some dark occurrences to keep things interesting. At the very least, I know that a number of moviegoers would be interested in seeing how Clooney would do in directing such a high-profile cast, especially since the film was already so well-received at the film festivals. Now, I am anything but a fan of politics, but as a fan of each member of the cast, I still had pretty high hopes for The Ides of March.
Set during the primaries of the next presidential election, The Ides of March introduces audiences to Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), the Junior Campaign Manager for Pennsylvanian governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), who is seeking to win the Democratic nomination. Meyers and his mentor, Senior Campaign Manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), are strategizing how to win the support of Ohio, which would virtually guarantee Morris’ presidential nomination, as there would be no overt competition relative to the Republican candidate. Idealistic and genuinely supportive of Morris, Meyers is soon approached by rival Campaign Manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), who tries to get the young strategist to switch his loyalties. Shaken by this political ploy that could threaten his career, Meyers is further agitated by the revelation of a scandal involving a campaign intern, Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood), and the continued prying of New York Times reporter, Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei). His world rapidly unraveling, Meyers must decide if he is willing to betray his principles and begins to question what he truly believes about the political landscape that is beginning to emerge.
Based on subject matter alone, I should have hated The Ides of March, but the reality is that I absolutely loved the film, which is bolstered by strong acting, smart dialogue, and a genuinely engaging and cutthroat story. As expected, Ryan Gosling shines as the lead character, his transition between earnestness and pessimism coming so naturally that it now seems there is no genre that this young actor cannot dominate. The common thread between the other actors involves a ruthless duality that is downright surprising and entertaining to watch, the best examples being Clooney and Giamatti, but their standout performances should in no way underplay the contributions of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Marisa Tomei. In terms of directing, Clooney also demonstrates considerable talent, keeping the narrative flowing in a stylish way that holds audience interest while concurrently maintaining tension levels key to the narrative. The dialogue is also clever and intelligent, making the complicated world of politics accessible to the average viewer, and when that achievement combines with the rest of the film’s elements, The Ides of March transforms into an absolute must-see.
If I had to point out anything truly disappointing about The Ides of March, I would have to say that the film does take some time to build momentum, and that the complicated dialogue is difficult to follow at first. In all honesty, audience patience will be rewarded if they can make it through some of the dialogue-heavy opening scenes, but that is a bit of a large request for casual moviegoers. Another object of criticism relative to The Ides of March involves the overall themes that are presented, as the pessimistic, brutal, and corrupt picture of politics that is ultimately painted may be difficult to separate from reality; granted, that is the same opinion I share of politics, but still…bummer. And the story may have been engaging, but the shocking “scandal” that is ultimately revealed is still far too predictable. These criticisms aside, this political drama/thriller still offers the kind of intellectual comment on an established institution that has been missing from theaters for quite some time.
From a box office perspective, no one was expecting The Ides of March to take down Real Steel in their shared opening weekend, as I guarantee that boxing robots have far more appeal than political elections. Still, $10 million is a respectable first weekend haul, and strong word-of-mouth has helped this intelligent film already double its modest production budget. I can only hope that positive buzz continues to build and can motivate some of the younger demographics who share a disdain for politics to realize that this film is a far cry from traditional expectations. If anything, Clooney has more than rectified the disaster that was last year’s The American, while Ryan Gosling can cross-off one more genre of film from his list of accomplishments: sports, independent, romance, comedy, drama, action…what’s next, documentaries and comic book adventures? I cannot emphasize it enough; you need to go see The Ides of March, which is absolutely fantastic.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Colombia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $10,470,143
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $29,159,326
Gross Revenue: $29,159,326
Production Budget: $12.5 million
Director: George Clooney
Because it is an adaptation of the 2008 play Farragut North, based on its title alone, The Ides of March really gives audiences no hints in terms of subject matter, but trailers promised a significantly mature story. It has been a while since a genuine political drama has charmed audiences, but with an ambitious and well-regarded cast that included A-listers like George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei, The Ides of March would be sure to draw a crowd. In all honesty, Colombia Pictures really did not have that large of a challenge in selling this film, as the story of a idealistic political candidate would resonate in a time of political turmoil, while a tagline like “Ambition Seduces. Power Corrupts” promised some dark occurrences to keep things interesting. At the very least, I know that a number of moviegoers would be interested in seeing how Clooney would do in directing such a high-profile cast, especially since the film was already so well-received at the film festivals. Now, I am anything but a fan of politics, but as a fan of each member of the cast, I still had pretty high hopes for The Ides of March.
Set during the primaries of the next presidential election, The Ides of March introduces audiences to Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), the Junior Campaign Manager for Pennsylvanian governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), who is seeking to win the Democratic nomination. Meyers and his mentor, Senior Campaign Manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), are strategizing how to win the support of Ohio, which would virtually guarantee Morris’ presidential nomination, as there would be no overt competition relative to the Republican candidate. Idealistic and genuinely supportive of Morris, Meyers is soon approached by rival Campaign Manager Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), who tries to get the young strategist to switch his loyalties. Shaken by this political ploy that could threaten his career, Meyers is further agitated by the revelation of a scandal involving a campaign intern, Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood), and the continued prying of New York Times reporter, Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei). His world rapidly unraveling, Meyers must decide if he is willing to betray his principles and begins to question what he truly believes about the political landscape that is beginning to emerge.
Based on subject matter alone, I should have hated The Ides of March, but the reality is that I absolutely loved the film, which is bolstered by strong acting, smart dialogue, and a genuinely engaging and cutthroat story. As expected, Ryan Gosling shines as the lead character, his transition between earnestness and pessimism coming so naturally that it now seems there is no genre that this young actor cannot dominate. The common thread between the other actors involves a ruthless duality that is downright surprising and entertaining to watch, the best examples being Clooney and Giamatti, but their standout performances should in no way underplay the contributions of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Marisa Tomei. In terms of directing, Clooney also demonstrates considerable talent, keeping the narrative flowing in a stylish way that holds audience interest while concurrently maintaining tension levels key to the narrative. The dialogue is also clever and intelligent, making the complicated world of politics accessible to the average viewer, and when that achievement combines with the rest of the film’s elements, The Ides of March transforms into an absolute must-see.
If I had to point out anything truly disappointing about The Ides of March, I would have to say that the film does take some time to build momentum, and that the complicated dialogue is difficult to follow at first. In all honesty, audience patience will be rewarded if they can make it through some of the dialogue-heavy opening scenes, but that is a bit of a large request for casual moviegoers. Another object of criticism relative to The Ides of March involves the overall themes that are presented, as the pessimistic, brutal, and corrupt picture of politics that is ultimately painted may be difficult to separate from reality; granted, that is the same opinion I share of politics, but still…bummer. And the story may have been engaging, but the shocking “scandal” that is ultimately revealed is still far too predictable. These criticisms aside, this political drama/thriller still offers the kind of intellectual comment on an established institution that has been missing from theaters for quite some time.
From a box office perspective, no one was expecting The Ides of March to take down Real Steel in their shared opening weekend, as I guarantee that boxing robots have far more appeal than political elections. Still, $10 million is a respectable first weekend haul, and strong word-of-mouth has helped this intelligent film already double its modest production budget. I can only hope that positive buzz continues to build and can motivate some of the younger demographics who share a disdain for politics to realize that this film is a far cry from traditional expectations. If anything, Clooney has more than rectified the disaster that was last year’s The American, while Ryan Gosling can cross-off one more genre of film from his list of accomplishments: sports, independent, romance, comedy, drama, action…what’s next, documentaries and comic book adventures? I cannot emphasize it enough; you need to go see The Ides of March, which is absolutely fantastic.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Real Steel: Short and Sweet
Selling a household name like Hugh Jackman in a sci-fi action film about giant boxing robots is nothing short of a film marketer’s wildest dream, providing near-infinite possibilities for partnerships, licensing, and other creative marketing tactics, the most prevalent being a cross-promotion for the HP TouchSmart. Developed as part of a 30-picture distribution deal between Touchstone and DreamWorks, Real Steel was swinging for the fences in terms of drawing a mass audience. I’ll admit it, when I first saw the trailer, I just thought that studios were slapping a different name on a film about Rock’em Sock’em Robots…hell, the first targeted search promotion item on Yahoo! under those once-popular toys is a Fandango ad for Real Steel movie tickets. Still, I have always been a fan of Jackman’s, and the 10-year-old in me couldn’t wait to let my imagination go wild while watching giant robots beat the snot out of each other. Against all expectations, early critical reviews for Real Steel were positive, so I was curious to see if the undoubtedly hefty marketing budget behind this potential fall blockbuster was truly justified.
Far from perfect and taking a considerable amount of time to build momentum, Real Steel nevertheless ended up being an energetic and entertaining adventure that stylishly presents simplistic fun. From a special-effects standpoint, the film is awe-inducing, as there is something undeniably cool about watching various designs of intimidating robots walk alongside humans and then engaging in brutal combat. Admittedly, Real Steel tries a little too hard to play-up a heartwarming angle with Hugh Jackman as an absentee dad who eventually learns a valuable life-lesson, but it is clear that each actor has fun with their respective roles, whether that is Evangeline Lily as the sassy potential love interest or Dakota Goyo as the stubborn, outspoken, and surprisingly funny kid. Nevertheless, by the time the final matches start, you will find yourself wishing that robots replace human boxers sometime in the near-future. As long as you don’t go in expecting the next Rocky and remember what it was like to use your imagination, I guarantee that you will find something enjoyable in Real Steel.
Overall Recommendation: High
Far from perfect and taking a considerable amount of time to build momentum, Real Steel nevertheless ended up being an energetic and entertaining adventure that stylishly presents simplistic fun. From a special-effects standpoint, the film is awe-inducing, as there is something undeniably cool about watching various designs of intimidating robots walk alongside humans and then engaging in brutal combat. Admittedly, Real Steel tries a little too hard to play-up a heartwarming angle with Hugh Jackman as an absentee dad who eventually learns a valuable life-lesson, but it is clear that each actor has fun with their respective roles, whether that is Evangeline Lily as the sassy potential love interest or Dakota Goyo as the stubborn, outspoken, and surprisingly funny kid. Nevertheless, by the time the final matches start, you will find yourself wishing that robots replace human boxers sometime in the near-future. As long as you don’t go in expecting the next Rocky and remember what it was like to use your imagination, I guarantee that you will find something enjoyable in Real Steel.
Overall Recommendation: High
Real Steel: Full Review
Real Steel - (October 7, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Touchstone Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $27,319,677
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $51,744,000
Gross Revenue: $108,344,000
Production Budget: $110million
Director: Shawn Levy
When he signed-on to play Wolverine from the X-men franchise, Hugh Jackman skyrocketed from anonymity to superstardom, but with the exception of a few notable entries (Swordfish, The Prestige), the actor hasn’t had much breakaway success outside portraying a comic-book character. Regardless, such an apparent shortcoming didn’t stop Touchstone and DreamWorks from leveraging the household name and using his popularity to target key audiences. My personal favorite included Jackman appearing on WWE Raw (what better audience for flashy boxing robots than wrestling fans?), and even more buzz was generated when he accidently fractured a wrestler’s jaw during a stunt…looks like the boxing lessons he took from Sugar Ray Leonard to prepare for his role paid off. With a potential sci-fi action blockbuster filled with character-robots with names like “Noisy Boy,” “Midas,” and “Zeus,” the possibilities for character licensing and brand partnerships seemed limitless, and with participants like HP, Dr. Pepper, ESPN, Microsoft, and Cadillac earning product placement credits, it seemed like a lot of corporations had faith in the selling potential of Real Steel. I certainly wasn’t expecting anything emotional or profound, but energetic trailers and eye-popping special effects seemed to promise a high level of entertainment, so I was sold.
Set in 2020, Real Steel introduces a world where robots have replaced humans in the world of competitive boxing, and former boxer Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is currently struggling to pay his debts and hopelessly trying to continue promoting and participating in ill-advised matches. After his last robot is destroyed in a match, Charlie is informed that his ex-girlfriend has died and he must decide the fate of his estranged eleven-year-old son, Max (Dakota Goyo). Sensing opportunity, Charlie negotiates to sign over custody of Max to the boy’s wealthy aunt and uncle for $100,000, provided that he care for the boy during the three months that the couple spends on a second honeymoon. After plans to use the money to buy a new robot go awry, Charlie and Max discover an old sparring robot named “Atom” in a local junkyard, but the robot’s resiliency and ability to shadow human movements soon benefit from Charlie’s experience, and “Atom” transforms into a formidable fighter. With the support of Charlie’s childhood friend, Bailey Tallet (Evangeline Lilly), the father-and-son team promotes “Atom” and earns a fight in the World Robot Boxing (WRB) league against current champion “Zeus.” Growing closer to his son over the shared success of “Atom,” Charlie must make a choice about his lifestyle and decide if he truly wants to forego custody and abandon the current pathway to success.
If I had to describe Real Steel in one word, I would have to choose “cool’; seriously, giant robots brought to life with stunning special effects is engaging, but perhaps the most awe-inducing feature is watching “Atom” mimic Hugh Jackman’s boxing moves. Such a creative and imaginative hook that would send any video game fan into a geek-fit is what makes Real Steel so entertaining and, as simplistic as it may sound, sometimes loud and flashy can be truly fun…I can tell you that I would pay top-dollar tomorrow to watch robot boxing over a traditional heavyweight bout. As far as performances go, Evangeline Lily is always a pleasure to watch, and Hugh Jackman clearly has fun with the role, but the real scene-stealer is young Dakota Goyo, who plays the kind of stubborn smartass that you cannot help but like and generates a very believable father-son dynamic with Jackman. The story is simplistic and fairly predictable, but as events unfold the audience is drawn in and inspired, genuinely on the edge of their seats rooting “Atom” on as he fights “Zeus”; drawing such an emotional connection to a non-speaking robot represents pretty significant talent on the part of director Shawn Levy. Unfortunately, for as enjoyable as Real Steel ended up being, the film took way too long to build any kind of momentum and clearly tries a little too hard to build deeper thematic components.
For perhaps the first forty-five minutes, I largely regretted my purchase of tickets for Real Steel, as when first presented, the hook of fighting robots came across a hokey and childish, strong evidence for an argument that Jackman took this project only for a paycheck. Thankfully, once “Atom” is introduced and participates in his first fight, the momentum and energy of the film finally start flowing, but for anyone other than the giddy ten-year-old boys gawking at robots, that is simply too long to wait in order to be entertained. I mentioned earlier that the father-son dynamic between Jackman and Goyo is believable, but the narrative and cinematography try way too hard to paint family conflict and character growth together, with close-ups of tear-filled characters and slow-motion sequences of cheering crowds coming across as forced and derived…plain-and-simple, this isn’t Rocky. To be clear, young adolescents will go absolutely nuts for Real Steel, but the film is not going to appeal to every demographic; older audiences are clearly a lost cause, but maybe females will be drawn to Hugh Jackman…maybe. Still, the positives of Real Steel heavily outweigh the negatives, making this newest blockbuster well-worth seeing.
Against a $110 million production budget and undoubtedly hefty marketing budget, Real Steel could have easily ended up a complete disaster, but thankfully, positive critical reception and audience responsiveness have lead to an almost full recovery of costs. Taking first place in its opening weekend was expected against a political thriller (The Ides of March), but a near-even split between strong domestic and international ticket sales has been a pleasant surprise; Michael Bay is no longer the only one who can entertain with flashy robots. As mentioned earlier, aside from blatant product placement and aggressive brand partnership, from a licensing and merchandising standpoint, the future potential for Real Steel is amazing, as I guarantee the videogames and toy lines coming down the pipe will be at the top of every young boy’s Christmas list…the Partnerships and Consumer Products division of DreamWorks must be going nuts right now. At the very least, Hugh Jackman may also have finally found a franchise to move beyond his X-men roots, as there is a definite opening for future sequels. If you embrace your inner imagination and accept that Real Steel should be taken as nothing more than core entertainment, then I guarantee that you will enjoy this newest sci-fi offering.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Touchstone Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $27,319,677
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $51,744,000
Gross Revenue: $108,344,000
Production Budget: $110million
Director: Shawn Levy
When he signed-on to play Wolverine from the X-men franchise, Hugh Jackman skyrocketed from anonymity to superstardom, but with the exception of a few notable entries (Swordfish, The Prestige), the actor hasn’t had much breakaway success outside portraying a comic-book character. Regardless, such an apparent shortcoming didn’t stop Touchstone and DreamWorks from leveraging the household name and using his popularity to target key audiences. My personal favorite included Jackman appearing on WWE Raw (what better audience for flashy boxing robots than wrestling fans?), and even more buzz was generated when he accidently fractured a wrestler’s jaw during a stunt…looks like the boxing lessons he took from Sugar Ray Leonard to prepare for his role paid off. With a potential sci-fi action blockbuster filled with character-robots with names like “Noisy Boy,” “Midas,” and “Zeus,” the possibilities for character licensing and brand partnerships seemed limitless, and with participants like HP, Dr. Pepper, ESPN, Microsoft, and Cadillac earning product placement credits, it seemed like a lot of corporations had faith in the selling potential of Real Steel. I certainly wasn’t expecting anything emotional or profound, but energetic trailers and eye-popping special effects seemed to promise a high level of entertainment, so I was sold.
Set in 2020, Real Steel introduces a world where robots have replaced humans in the world of competitive boxing, and former boxer Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is currently struggling to pay his debts and hopelessly trying to continue promoting and participating in ill-advised matches. After his last robot is destroyed in a match, Charlie is informed that his ex-girlfriend has died and he must decide the fate of his estranged eleven-year-old son, Max (Dakota Goyo). Sensing opportunity, Charlie negotiates to sign over custody of Max to the boy’s wealthy aunt and uncle for $100,000, provided that he care for the boy during the three months that the couple spends on a second honeymoon. After plans to use the money to buy a new robot go awry, Charlie and Max discover an old sparring robot named “Atom” in a local junkyard, but the robot’s resiliency and ability to shadow human movements soon benefit from Charlie’s experience, and “Atom” transforms into a formidable fighter. With the support of Charlie’s childhood friend, Bailey Tallet (Evangeline Lilly), the father-and-son team promotes “Atom” and earns a fight in the World Robot Boxing (WRB) league against current champion “Zeus.” Growing closer to his son over the shared success of “Atom,” Charlie must make a choice about his lifestyle and decide if he truly wants to forego custody and abandon the current pathway to success.
If I had to describe Real Steel in one word, I would have to choose “cool’; seriously, giant robots brought to life with stunning special effects is engaging, but perhaps the most awe-inducing feature is watching “Atom” mimic Hugh Jackman’s boxing moves. Such a creative and imaginative hook that would send any video game fan into a geek-fit is what makes Real Steel so entertaining and, as simplistic as it may sound, sometimes loud and flashy can be truly fun…I can tell you that I would pay top-dollar tomorrow to watch robot boxing over a traditional heavyweight bout. As far as performances go, Evangeline Lily is always a pleasure to watch, and Hugh Jackman clearly has fun with the role, but the real scene-stealer is young Dakota Goyo, who plays the kind of stubborn smartass that you cannot help but like and generates a very believable father-son dynamic with Jackman. The story is simplistic and fairly predictable, but as events unfold the audience is drawn in and inspired, genuinely on the edge of their seats rooting “Atom” on as he fights “Zeus”; drawing such an emotional connection to a non-speaking robot represents pretty significant talent on the part of director Shawn Levy. Unfortunately, for as enjoyable as Real Steel ended up being, the film took way too long to build any kind of momentum and clearly tries a little too hard to build deeper thematic components.
For perhaps the first forty-five minutes, I largely regretted my purchase of tickets for Real Steel, as when first presented, the hook of fighting robots came across a hokey and childish, strong evidence for an argument that Jackman took this project only for a paycheck. Thankfully, once “Atom” is introduced and participates in his first fight, the momentum and energy of the film finally start flowing, but for anyone other than the giddy ten-year-old boys gawking at robots, that is simply too long to wait in order to be entertained. I mentioned earlier that the father-son dynamic between Jackman and Goyo is believable, but the narrative and cinematography try way too hard to paint family conflict and character growth together, with close-ups of tear-filled characters and slow-motion sequences of cheering crowds coming across as forced and derived…plain-and-simple, this isn’t Rocky. To be clear, young adolescents will go absolutely nuts for Real Steel, but the film is not going to appeal to every demographic; older audiences are clearly a lost cause, but maybe females will be drawn to Hugh Jackman…maybe. Still, the positives of Real Steel heavily outweigh the negatives, making this newest blockbuster well-worth seeing.
Against a $110 million production budget and undoubtedly hefty marketing budget, Real Steel could have easily ended up a complete disaster, but thankfully, positive critical reception and audience responsiveness have lead to an almost full recovery of costs. Taking first place in its opening weekend was expected against a political thriller (The Ides of March), but a near-even split between strong domestic and international ticket sales has been a pleasant surprise; Michael Bay is no longer the only one who can entertain with flashy robots. As mentioned earlier, aside from blatant product placement and aggressive brand partnership, from a licensing and merchandising standpoint, the future potential for Real Steel is amazing, as I guarantee the videogames and toy lines coming down the pipe will be at the top of every young boy’s Christmas list…the Partnerships and Consumer Products division of DreamWorks must be going nuts right now. At the very least, Hugh Jackman may also have finally found a franchise to move beyond his X-men roots, as there is a definite opening for future sequels. If you embrace your inner imagination and accept that Real Steel should be taken as nothing more than core entertainment, then I guarantee that you will enjoy this newest sci-fi offering.
Overall Recommendation: High
Friday, October 7, 2011
50/50: Short and Sweet
Quick question: how do you make a film about cancer funny? Granted, Showtime’s hit series The Big C with Laura Linney has been able to take a more lighthearted approach to the serious disease, but getting that balance across in less than two hours is still one hell of a challenge. Almost everyone has been influenced by cancer in some way, whether through personal experience, friend, family member, or acquaintance, so a story about one man’s struggle to survive could resonate with virtually any audience. In terms of selecting the right actor to helm a project as emotionally-charged as 50/50, filmmakers wisely signed Joseph Gordon-Levitt, whose popularity has been skyrocketing lately after his work in (500) Days of Summer and Inception. Add in a cast that included perpetual funnyman Seth Rogen, emerging superstar Bryce Dallas Howard, and long-absent legend Anjelica Huston, and it was clear that 50/50 wasn’t going to be shooting for any cheap laughs. It would be interesting to see if the diverse cast could cover the sensitive subject matter and deliver genuine humor without coming across as tasteless.
Against normal September tradition, 50/50 continues the pattern set by gems like Contagion, Warrior, Dolphin Tale, and Moneyball, because this unique dramedy is utterly fantastic. Telling a heartfelt story of the battle for survival, 50/50 brilliantly blends the gravity of facing terminal disease with clever humor, imbuing an undeniable sense of humanity and reality into the film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt commands both your attention and respect with a powerful performance that shifts between levity, cynicism, anger, and fear. As far as co-stars go, Seth Rogen emerges as a champion, fitting into the perfect role to match and amplify his showcase brand of humor, while Anna Kendrick is so earnestly naïve that you cannot help but enjoy the chemistry she shares with Gordon-Levitt. Compelling and endlessly entertaining, you will laugh, cry, and rejoice in the testament to human spirit delivered by 50/50, easily one of the most pleasant and genuine films of the year…no excuse can justify not going to the theater immediately.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Against normal September tradition, 50/50 continues the pattern set by gems like Contagion, Warrior, Dolphin Tale, and Moneyball, because this unique dramedy is utterly fantastic. Telling a heartfelt story of the battle for survival, 50/50 brilliantly blends the gravity of facing terminal disease with clever humor, imbuing an undeniable sense of humanity and reality into the film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt commands both your attention and respect with a powerful performance that shifts between levity, cynicism, anger, and fear. As far as co-stars go, Seth Rogen emerges as a champion, fitting into the perfect role to match and amplify his showcase brand of humor, while Anna Kendrick is so earnestly naïve that you cannot help but enjoy the chemistry she shares with Gordon-Levitt. Compelling and endlessly entertaining, you will laugh, cry, and rejoice in the testament to human spirit delivered by 50/50, easily one of the most pleasant and genuine films of the year…no excuse can justify not going to the theater immediately.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
50/50: Full Review
50/50 - (September 30th, 2011): R
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #5 with $8,644,095
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $11,830,372
Gross Revenue: $11,830,372
Production Budget: $8 million
Director: Jonathan Levine
It may surprise you to discover that 50/50 is actually loosely based on true events, as the plot mirrors the life of screenwriter Will Reiser, who was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and sought solace with his longtime friend, Seth Rogen. Now, art would imitate life, as Rogen would recreate his supportive role alongside Joseph Gordon-Levitt, hoping to effectively tackle a serious disease like cancer, but also bring in some levity complemented with tact. In terms of selling 50/50 to audiences, promotions certainly echoed the type of buddy comedy that moviegoers have come to expect from someone like Judd Apatow, but casting choices made it clear that genuine acting talent would bring sincere depth to the film. With rising stars like Bryce Dallas Howard (The Help) and Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air), and a Hollywood legend of Anjelica Huston’s (The Royal Tenenbaums) caliber, 50/50 certainly had more than enough draw to bring in older audiences, many of whom were virtually guaranteed to have had their lives touched by cancer at some point. Needless to say, as a fan of the cast and someone curious to see if the blend of drama and comedy could be executed effectively, I couldn’t wait to see 50/50.
Telling a tale of the struggle to survive against cancer, 50/50 introduces audiences to Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young researcher at a local radio station who visits his doctor seeking a remedy to his consistent back pain. Adam’s life is turned upside down when he is diagnosed with a rare type of cancer located in his spine, which traditionally only has a 50% chance of survival. After breaking the news to his crude best friend and co-worker, Kyle (Seth Rogen), his fair-weather girlfriend, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), and his overprotective mother, Diane (Anjelica Huston), Adam prepares to undergo treatment. Alongside chemo-therapy, Adam starts seeing a grief counselor, Katie (Anna Kendrick), who is just starting her career and is soon revealed to be very inexperienced, a fact that only adds to his confusion and cynicism. Suddenly faced with his immediate mortality and seemingly insurmountable odds, Adam fights for his life and earnestly tries to maintain some semblance of hope alongside those close to him.
Tackling such an emotionally-charged subject like terminal disease, many could be understandably skeptical at any attempts at humor, but 50/50 achieves the necessary balance flawlessly, with help from clever narrative elements and the sense of friendship that exists between Joseph Gordon Levitt and Seth Rogen. The two young actors are very believable best friends, and Seth Rogen shines as the crude companion doing everything he can to take his best friend’s mind off of the precarious situation, the most popular tactic involving using sympathy to pick up women in bars. Prior to 50/50, I had feared that Seth Rogen’s man-child personality had run its course, but this type of humor fits perfectly into the film, in essence creating the perfect type of character for Rogen to portray. Other strong sources of humor include poking fun at some traditional cancer treatments, whether that involves Adam’s reaction to the marijuana-laced cookies presented to him by elderly chemo patients, his noted resemblance to Voldemort after he shaves his head, or the bond he forms with the rescue dog designed to therapeutically aid his recovery (an old, emaciated Greyhound aptly named “Skeletor”). All humor and joking aside though, 50/50 maintains a genuine gravity and sense of emotion, two strong elements anchored by real characters and powerhouse performances.
I have always been a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but in 50/50, he demonstrates near-savant levels of acting ability, demanding audience attention and recognition in a way that will not be easily forgotten. The numbness after his diagnosis, the frustration surfacing after ineffective treatment, and the genuine fear before surgery…Gordon-Levitt imbues Adam with so much depth that it is mesmerizing. In one particular instance, Adam has a brief mental breakdown and vents his anger, screaming at the top of his lungs, and the scene was so powerful that an astonished hush fell over the audience. The stark reality of the film is only enhanced by the realistic and engaging personalities that surround Adam, including Bryce Dallas Howard as Adam’s toxic and selfish girlfriend, Anjelica Huston as Adam’s overprotective and emotional train-wreck of a mother, and Anna Kendrick as Adam’s naïve therapist struggling to comfort her patient. Each of these characters add a realism to 50/50 that is sure to have you question your own reaction, should your doctor deliver the worst kind of news at your next check-up.
With such high overall quality, key selling points, and no overt justification for criticism, 50/50 should have been a box office juggernaut, but an R-rated comedy set against undeniably depressing subject matter couldn’t hope to outmatch family films. Opening in fifth place after its first weekend, 50/50 may seem like something of a failure, but consider this, against an $8 million budget, this newest dramedy has already turned a profit, so no one at Summit Entertainment has any cause to worry. I can only hope that word of mouth does its job and more moviegoers realize just how enjoyable and rewarding 50/50 is as a film, subsequently boosting numbers or at the very least shielding against dramatic week-to-week drop-off. Needless to say, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has more than proven his talent as an actor, and my faith in Seth Rogen’s comedic appeal has rightfully been restored. I simply cannot emphasize it enough, 50/50 is fantastic and should not be missed by anyone…trust me.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Summit Entertainment
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #5 with $8,644,095
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $11,830,372
Gross Revenue: $11,830,372
Production Budget: $8 million
Director: Jonathan Levine
It may surprise you to discover that 50/50 is actually loosely based on true events, as the plot mirrors the life of screenwriter Will Reiser, who was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer and sought solace with his longtime friend, Seth Rogen. Now, art would imitate life, as Rogen would recreate his supportive role alongside Joseph Gordon-Levitt, hoping to effectively tackle a serious disease like cancer, but also bring in some levity complemented with tact. In terms of selling 50/50 to audiences, promotions certainly echoed the type of buddy comedy that moviegoers have come to expect from someone like Judd Apatow, but casting choices made it clear that genuine acting talent would bring sincere depth to the film. With rising stars like Bryce Dallas Howard (The Help) and Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air), and a Hollywood legend of Anjelica Huston’s (The Royal Tenenbaums) caliber, 50/50 certainly had more than enough draw to bring in older audiences, many of whom were virtually guaranteed to have had their lives touched by cancer at some point. Needless to say, as a fan of the cast and someone curious to see if the blend of drama and comedy could be executed effectively, I couldn’t wait to see 50/50.
Telling a tale of the struggle to survive against cancer, 50/50 introduces audiences to Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young researcher at a local radio station who visits his doctor seeking a remedy to his consistent back pain. Adam’s life is turned upside down when he is diagnosed with a rare type of cancer located in his spine, which traditionally only has a 50% chance of survival. After breaking the news to his crude best friend and co-worker, Kyle (Seth Rogen), his fair-weather girlfriend, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), and his overprotective mother, Diane (Anjelica Huston), Adam prepares to undergo treatment. Alongside chemo-therapy, Adam starts seeing a grief counselor, Katie (Anna Kendrick), who is just starting her career and is soon revealed to be very inexperienced, a fact that only adds to his confusion and cynicism. Suddenly faced with his immediate mortality and seemingly insurmountable odds, Adam fights for his life and earnestly tries to maintain some semblance of hope alongside those close to him.
Tackling such an emotionally-charged subject like terminal disease, many could be understandably skeptical at any attempts at humor, but 50/50 achieves the necessary balance flawlessly, with help from clever narrative elements and the sense of friendship that exists between Joseph Gordon Levitt and Seth Rogen. The two young actors are very believable best friends, and Seth Rogen shines as the crude companion doing everything he can to take his best friend’s mind off of the precarious situation, the most popular tactic involving using sympathy to pick up women in bars. Prior to 50/50, I had feared that Seth Rogen’s man-child personality had run its course, but this type of humor fits perfectly into the film, in essence creating the perfect type of character for Rogen to portray. Other strong sources of humor include poking fun at some traditional cancer treatments, whether that involves Adam’s reaction to the marijuana-laced cookies presented to him by elderly chemo patients, his noted resemblance to Voldemort after he shaves his head, or the bond he forms with the rescue dog designed to therapeutically aid his recovery (an old, emaciated Greyhound aptly named “Skeletor”). All humor and joking aside though, 50/50 maintains a genuine gravity and sense of emotion, two strong elements anchored by real characters and powerhouse performances.
I have always been a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, but in 50/50, he demonstrates near-savant levels of acting ability, demanding audience attention and recognition in a way that will not be easily forgotten. The numbness after his diagnosis, the frustration surfacing after ineffective treatment, and the genuine fear before surgery…Gordon-Levitt imbues Adam with so much depth that it is mesmerizing. In one particular instance, Adam has a brief mental breakdown and vents his anger, screaming at the top of his lungs, and the scene was so powerful that an astonished hush fell over the audience. The stark reality of the film is only enhanced by the realistic and engaging personalities that surround Adam, including Bryce Dallas Howard as Adam’s toxic and selfish girlfriend, Anjelica Huston as Adam’s overprotective and emotional train-wreck of a mother, and Anna Kendrick as Adam’s naïve therapist struggling to comfort her patient. Each of these characters add a realism to 50/50 that is sure to have you question your own reaction, should your doctor deliver the worst kind of news at your next check-up.
With such high overall quality, key selling points, and no overt justification for criticism, 50/50 should have been a box office juggernaut, but an R-rated comedy set against undeniably depressing subject matter couldn’t hope to outmatch family films. Opening in fifth place after its first weekend, 50/50 may seem like something of a failure, but consider this, against an $8 million budget, this newest dramedy has already turned a profit, so no one at Summit Entertainment has any cause to worry. I can only hope that word of mouth does its job and more moviegoers realize just how enjoyable and rewarding 50/50 is as a film, subsequently boosting numbers or at the very least shielding against dramatic week-to-week drop-off. Needless to say, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has more than proven his talent as an actor, and my faith in Seth Rogen’s comedic appeal has rightfully been restored. I simply cannot emphasize it enough, 50/50 is fantastic and should not be missed by anyone…trust me.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Moneyball: Short and Sweet
Of all the genres out there, baseball movies represent one of my absolute favorites, which is ironic when one considers that I absolutely detest watching baseball. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy going to Dodger Stadium, but I would much rather watch Rookie of the Year, Major League, or Angels in the Outfield than the standard nine innings. What captured my attention most about Moneyball was the strong cast headed by Brad Pitt, who is responsible for some of my favorite movies, including Se7en, Fight Club, Ocean’s Eleven and Inglorious Basterds. Rumor patrol had been hinting at Pitt’s performance in a baseball film for months, and the fact that this sports drama is biographical and based on now-historic sporting events guaranteed a strong interest among legions of sports fans. Sony Pictures had understandably high hopes for this potential blockbuster, promising a smart and engaging film showcasing its lead actor’s talent and making a play for the always-competitive Awards Season, so maybe Moneyball would be worth seeing despite my lack of enthusiasm for the subject matter.
Far from traditional, Moneyball is more a drama film about baseball than a baseball film, with more of the sport being discussed than actually played, and against every proclivity I have concerning “America’s Pastime,” I loved every minute of it. Smart, clever, humorous, and engaging, Moneyball takes the business and strategy behind baseball and presents it in such a manner that it is tremendously entertaining for even the most casual of fans…I’m sure baseball fanatics will go absolutely nuts. Brad Pitt gives the performance of his career, stylishly blending confidence with uncertainty in such a way he develops into the best kind of inspiring underdog. Another key surprise is the presence of a dramatically different Jonah Hill, who abandons his trademark snarky loser persona in favor of playing an endearingly enthusiastic nerd who doles out wisdom with the confidence of a Jedi. Bottom line, if you are a fan of sports in any way, shape, or form, you have to see Moneyball, a surefire new classic.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Far from traditional, Moneyball is more a drama film about baseball than a baseball film, with more of the sport being discussed than actually played, and against every proclivity I have concerning “America’s Pastime,” I loved every minute of it. Smart, clever, humorous, and engaging, Moneyball takes the business and strategy behind baseball and presents it in such a manner that it is tremendously entertaining for even the most casual of fans…I’m sure baseball fanatics will go absolutely nuts. Brad Pitt gives the performance of his career, stylishly blending confidence with uncertainty in such a way he develops into the best kind of inspiring underdog. Another key surprise is the presence of a dramatically different Jonah Hill, who abandons his trademark snarky loser persona in favor of playing an endearingly enthusiastic nerd who doles out wisdom with the confidence of a Jedi. Bottom line, if you are a fan of sports in any way, shape, or form, you have to see Moneyball, a surefire new classic.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Moneyball: Full Review
Moneyball - (September 23rd, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $19,501,302
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $40,867,592
Gross Revenue: $40,867,592
Production Budget: $50 million
Director: Bennett Miller
In terms of Hollywood heavyweights, few actors can out-rank Brad Pitt (pretty impressive for a guy who once had a job handing out flyers for El Pollo Loco in a full-body chicken suit), and the hype surrounding his newest project, based on the 2003 Michael Lewis book of the same name, was very prevalent. A few weeks back, Pitt granted an interview to Entertainment Weekly concerning his entire career, and it was clear that both he and Sony Pictures had tremendously high hopes for Moneyball. One notable and humorous buzz generator involved the revelation that Pitt himself knew very little about baseball, which would make his playing Oakland Athletics’ general manager Billy Beane considerably more difficult than many would have initially anticipated. Still, with Jonah Hill and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as part of the cast and a story based on historical fact that revolutionized the way baseball is played, Moneyball had all the makings of a hit blockbuster. Now, I am anything but an avid baseball fan, but promotions promised an inspiring and engaging plot that would earn its place among many classic sports films, so needless to say, sheer curiosity got the better of some of my more traditional subject matter preferences.
Opening at the end of the 2001 baseball season with the Oakland Athletics losing to the New York Yankees, and the loss of several key players to free agency, Moneyball follows General Manager Billy Bean’s (Brad Pitt) attempts to rebuild his roster with a paltry budget in comparison to many other big league teams. After a rather unfruitful visit to the Cleveland Indians, Billy meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale economics graduate with highly unconventional ideas concerning assessing player value. Seizing the opportunity, Billy hires Peter and together, the two decide to select players almost exclusively concerning their measured on base percentage (OBP). This new tactics is dismissed as ludicrous by scouts and the Athletics’ manager, Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), but Billy believes in his gamble and uses underdogs to hopefully build a winning season. With no immediate success and significant criticism from both analysts and fans, Billy can only hope that his new strategy eventually pans out, otherwise he will have effectively destroyed his career in Major League Baseball.
Based on the above plot synopsis, one would think that a film focused on statistics and strategy would be boring, and a movie of over two hours of talking about baseball should have driven me absolutely nuts, but take my positive reaction as a testament to Moneyball’s overall quality. The script and pacing are smart, engaging, and energetic, in essence building anticipation for this undeniable underdog team, the standout sequences being when Billy Beane discusses a trade over the phone. Brad Pitt gives one of the best performances of his career, showcasing a cool confidence interspersed with moments of uncertainty and genuine levity that make Beane a likable and empathic character. Jonah Hill is also considerably surprising; once playing the same sarcastic character over and over, I had largely written him off as no longer entertaining, but this time around, he portrays a different sentiment as an earnest intellectual, thereby considerably increasing his credibility as a versatile actor. As much as I would like to balance so many positive elements with a few criticisms, the reality is that there is not much to complain about in Moneyball.
If I absolutely had to point out a few disappointments regarding Moneyball, I would have to say that I believe Phillip Seymour Hoffman was wrongfully cast; to be clear, it is not that he gave a bad performance, it is just that an actor of his talent deserves more screen time than what was understandably allotted to the character of Art Howe. Another small shortcoming would come from the some of the heavy baseball dialogue scenes that were a little difficult to follow…I’m sure fanatics had no problem, but casual fans need a little more easing into that kind of jargon. Beyond that, I really have no complaints concerning Moneyball, because it remains the best type of inspiring and heartfelt sports drama. The few-and-far-in-between pure baseball scenes are thrilling, keeping the audience on edge and rooting even though the outcome is already known…I don’t care who you are, that accomplishment is impressive. Plain and simple, I cannot emphasize it enough, with strong acting, likable characters, smart dialogue, and an engaging story, Moneyball is without a doubt one of the best films of the year.
Despite considerable star-power, Moneyball was unable to topple The Lion King, but no number of box office analysts could have predicted the casualties that would have fallen to the Disney powerhouse. Earning $40 million so far against a $50 million budget may seem like a cause for concern among the executives at Sony Pictures, but one must consider that the film has yet to be released internationally. Moneyball has an undeniable American slant, but should the film be released in the Hispanic, Japanese, or Korean markets, the baseball subject matter will resonate in an incredibly strong way. Promising financial future aside, Moneyball remains one of the few sports movies in recent memory worthy of a strong draw, and I fully expect Brad Pitt to receive the recognition he deserves when Awards Season comes around. Fan of the actor or the game, it doesn’t matter, do not miss Moneyball!
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Columbia Pictures (Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $19,501,302
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $40,867,592
Gross Revenue: $40,867,592
Production Budget: $50 million
Director: Bennett Miller
In terms of Hollywood heavyweights, few actors can out-rank Brad Pitt (pretty impressive for a guy who once had a job handing out flyers for El Pollo Loco in a full-body chicken suit), and the hype surrounding his newest project, based on the 2003 Michael Lewis book of the same name, was very prevalent. A few weeks back, Pitt granted an interview to Entertainment Weekly concerning his entire career, and it was clear that both he and Sony Pictures had tremendously high hopes for Moneyball. One notable and humorous buzz generator involved the revelation that Pitt himself knew very little about baseball, which would make his playing Oakland Athletics’ general manager Billy Beane considerably more difficult than many would have initially anticipated. Still, with Jonah Hill and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as part of the cast and a story based on historical fact that revolutionized the way baseball is played, Moneyball had all the makings of a hit blockbuster. Now, I am anything but an avid baseball fan, but promotions promised an inspiring and engaging plot that would earn its place among many classic sports films, so needless to say, sheer curiosity got the better of some of my more traditional subject matter preferences.
Opening at the end of the 2001 baseball season with the Oakland Athletics losing to the New York Yankees, and the loss of several key players to free agency, Moneyball follows General Manager Billy Bean’s (Brad Pitt) attempts to rebuild his roster with a paltry budget in comparison to many other big league teams. After a rather unfruitful visit to the Cleveland Indians, Billy meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a Yale economics graduate with highly unconventional ideas concerning assessing player value. Seizing the opportunity, Billy hires Peter and together, the two decide to select players almost exclusively concerning their measured on base percentage (OBP). This new tactics is dismissed as ludicrous by scouts and the Athletics’ manager, Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), but Billy believes in his gamble and uses underdogs to hopefully build a winning season. With no immediate success and significant criticism from both analysts and fans, Billy can only hope that his new strategy eventually pans out, otherwise he will have effectively destroyed his career in Major League Baseball.
Based on the above plot synopsis, one would think that a film focused on statistics and strategy would be boring, and a movie of over two hours of talking about baseball should have driven me absolutely nuts, but take my positive reaction as a testament to Moneyball’s overall quality. The script and pacing are smart, engaging, and energetic, in essence building anticipation for this undeniable underdog team, the standout sequences being when Billy Beane discusses a trade over the phone. Brad Pitt gives one of the best performances of his career, showcasing a cool confidence interspersed with moments of uncertainty and genuine levity that make Beane a likable and empathic character. Jonah Hill is also considerably surprising; once playing the same sarcastic character over and over, I had largely written him off as no longer entertaining, but this time around, he portrays a different sentiment as an earnest intellectual, thereby considerably increasing his credibility as a versatile actor. As much as I would like to balance so many positive elements with a few criticisms, the reality is that there is not much to complain about in Moneyball.
If I absolutely had to point out a few disappointments regarding Moneyball, I would have to say that I believe Phillip Seymour Hoffman was wrongfully cast; to be clear, it is not that he gave a bad performance, it is just that an actor of his talent deserves more screen time than what was understandably allotted to the character of Art Howe. Another small shortcoming would come from the some of the heavy baseball dialogue scenes that were a little difficult to follow…I’m sure fanatics had no problem, but casual fans need a little more easing into that kind of jargon. Beyond that, I really have no complaints concerning Moneyball, because it remains the best type of inspiring and heartfelt sports drama. The few-and-far-in-between pure baseball scenes are thrilling, keeping the audience on edge and rooting even though the outcome is already known…I don’t care who you are, that accomplishment is impressive. Plain and simple, I cannot emphasize it enough, with strong acting, likable characters, smart dialogue, and an engaging story, Moneyball is without a doubt one of the best films of the year.
Despite considerable star-power, Moneyball was unable to topple The Lion King, but no number of box office analysts could have predicted the casualties that would have fallen to the Disney powerhouse. Earning $40 million so far against a $50 million budget may seem like a cause for concern among the executives at Sony Pictures, but one must consider that the film has yet to be released internationally. Moneyball has an undeniable American slant, but should the film be released in the Hispanic, Japanese, or Korean markets, the baseball subject matter will resonate in an incredibly strong way. Promising financial future aside, Moneyball remains one of the few sports movies in recent memory worthy of a strong draw, and I fully expect Brad Pitt to receive the recognition he deserves when Awards Season comes around. Fan of the actor or the game, it doesn’t matter, do not miss Moneyball!
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Dolphin Tale: Short and Sweet
Beyond the traditional animated offerings that oftentimes saturate theaters, there has not been a pure live-action family film in quite some time, so Dolphin Tale undoubtedly represented a bit of a gamble. Aside from the shameless plug that yet another feature would be presented in the now largely-unwarranted 3D format, Warner Bros.’ marketing efforts would still be helped by the popular cast. However, in spite of the powerful celebrities attached to the project, the clear draw for Dolphin Tale would be the titular character, Winter, who has built a considerable fan base herself and has served as an undeniable inspiration for many. Add in the fact that the producers from the 2009 super-hit The Blind Side would be exerting their influence on this family drama, and a high-quality film was virtually guaranteed. Promotions promised a heartfelt and inspiring story that would leave audiences of all ages cheering, but the failure to hold up that promise could easily spell disaster.
I may like dolphins, but I was still fully expecting Dolphin Tale to be hokey and childish; so I was understandably stunned when this family film delivered an emotional and awe-inspiring story sure to melt the heart of even the most hardened skeptic. You will fall in love with Winter the dolphin almost immediately, and as her struggle progresses, you will find yourself filled with hope and inspiration that culminates in a climax that leaves theaters clapping and cheering. In terms of raw emotion that tugs at the heartstrings, Dolphin Tale goes for the jugular, as several tearjerker scenes pile on what amounts to almost unfair levels of pathos…if you don’t shed a tear, I fear for your soul. When it comes to the human cast, Harry Connick, Jr. and Morgan Freeman are the clear standouts, helping shield the fact that the film at times overplays to its younger audience. Plain and simple, Dolphin Tale may be the feel-good story of the year, delivering a surprisingly high quality family drama that should not be missed by anyone.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
I may like dolphins, but I was still fully expecting Dolphin Tale to be hokey and childish; so I was understandably stunned when this family film delivered an emotional and awe-inspiring story sure to melt the heart of even the most hardened skeptic. You will fall in love with Winter the dolphin almost immediately, and as her struggle progresses, you will find yourself filled with hope and inspiration that culminates in a climax that leaves theaters clapping and cheering. In terms of raw emotion that tugs at the heartstrings, Dolphin Tale goes for the jugular, as several tearjerker scenes pile on what amounts to almost unfair levels of pathos…if you don’t shed a tear, I fear for your soul. When it comes to the human cast, Harry Connick, Jr. and Morgan Freeman are the clear standouts, helping shield the fact that the film at times overplays to its younger audience. Plain and simple, Dolphin Tale may be the feel-good story of the year, delivering a surprisingly high quality family drama that should not be missed by anyone.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Dolphin Tale: Full Review
Dolphin Tale - (September 23rd, 2011): PG
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $19,152,401
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $39,231,171
Gross Revenue: $39,231,171
Production Budget: $37 million
Director: Charles Martin Smith
As shameful as it is to admit, I was not aware of the situation surrounding Winter the dolphin prior to the announced release of Dolphin Tale, but upon further research, it was clear that this inspiring mammal was actually quite popular. In choosing to adapt a film around this emotionally-charged story, director Charles Martin Smith and producers would have to delicately handle true events so that they resonated with a mass audience, and there seemed no better way to accomplish that task than position Winter as a character whom moviegoers couldn’t help but love. Using a familiar cast that included a powerhouse of Morgan Freeman’s caliber and making an animal the central focus, Dolphin Tale began to resemble the type of crowd-pleaser that made 2008’s Marley & Me such a success. However, I do admit that the credibility of the film took a bit of a hit being offered in 3D, as such an angle could cheapen the sensitivity required to make a film about overcoming physical disability truly serious. Slightly skeptical but nevertheless having high hopes for Dolphin Tale, I couldn’t wait to see how this beloved animal and her amazing story would present at the theater.
Set in Florida, Dolphin Tale first introduces audiences to young loner Sawyer Nelson (Nathan Gamble), who lives with his mother, Lorraine (Ashley Judd), and one day stumbles upon an injured bottlenose dolphin caught in a crab trap. The dolphin is quickly transported to a local marine hospital run by veterinarian Clay Haskett (Harry Connick, Jr.), but the injuries to her tail are so severe that it must be amputated. Sawyer soon becomes a regular at the struggling marine hospital, befriending Clay’s young daughter, Hazel, and forming a bond with the dolphin, now named Winter. With Sawyer’s help, Winter begins to recover and learns how to swim without her tail, but it is soon revealed that her method of swimming is causing severe damage to her spine, and without some kind of change, she will soon die. Not prepared to say goodbye to his close friend, Sawyer seeks out prosthetics expert Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Morgan Freeman), who agrees to work with the marine center and fashion a revolutionary prosthetic tail for Winter. Soon enough, Winter’s inspirational story spreads and countless visitors flock to Florida in order to visit and support the brave dolphin.
If the above plot synopsis sounds even slightly heartfelt, such a revelation remains a dramatic understatement, as Dolphin Tale’s story is so engrossing, emotional, and inspiring, it is almost unbelievable. Winter is so instantaneously lovable that you will feel that you have a bond with her that is as strong as the one she shares with Sawyer, and her resonance with different kinds of prosthetic or disabled struggles is so strong that her triumph will leave you cheering. The film’s direction, dialogue, and soundtrack combine to pile on the heart so strongly that it almost unfair, but the end result is so rewarding and enriching that you will walk away filled with hope…in one particular scene, a young girl goes to visit Winter, and it is revealed that her leg has been amputated, and that powerful parallel is sure to leave you in tears. As far as the human cast goes, everyone gives a lighthearted and simplistic performance that is entertaining, and Nathan Gamble shows considerable potential, but Harry Connick, Jr. and Morgan Freeman stand out as humorous and genuinely believable in their attachment to Winter. With all of these factors combined, Dolphin Tale is a near-perfect family film, and the few small discrepancies present are easily forgivable.
As stated earlier, Dolphin Tale is undeniably inspiring for both child and adult audiences alike, but at times, the film skews towards the younger demographic and sacrifices narrative momentum. For instance, Winter has just barely survived her amputation and is struggling to recover, and then a misplaced sequence of the two children trying to fly a toy helicopter shows up, so shamelessly silly and clearly included to make some use of the wasted 3D technology that it is a little insulting. The dialogue plays to younger audience members in a few instances, and a few of the cast members (Kris Kristofferson) are underused, but in its entirety, the end result deftly blends lighthearted fun and significant empathy. In the end, these shortcomings are tolerable, as Dolphin Tale’s story swings for the fences repeatedly with undeniable success; for instance, the narrative intersperses a storyline in which Sawyer’s older cousin joins the Army and is injured, and when his plight meets Winter’s in the inspiring conclusion, I guarantee that you will tear-up in joy. Based on all of these considerations, Dolphin Tale is not only a great family film, but it is also on its way to becoming an instant classic.
From a box office perspective, Dolphin Tale couldn’t overcome audience familiarity with The Lion King, so it is understandable what direction audiences would turn when faced with two family films in theaters. However, word of mouth and positive buzz have created a near-miracle, as the film debuted in third place but jumped to the top of ticket receipts in its second weekend. With this incredibly rare occurrence due to audience attendance only dropping 27%, Dolphin Tale has already recovered its modest budget, and with so many positive reviews, moviegoer presence should remain relatively stable. I may sound gushy and overly-enthusiastic when speaking about Dolphin Tale, but trust me when I say that such behavior is only a testament to how strong the film really is as a must-see. Who knows, I’m compelled to take a trip down to Florida myself and meet Winter, because I am now definitely a fan of that wonderful dolphin.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $19,152,401
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $39,231,171
Gross Revenue: $39,231,171
Production Budget: $37 million
Director: Charles Martin Smith
As shameful as it is to admit, I was not aware of the situation surrounding Winter the dolphin prior to the announced release of Dolphin Tale, but upon further research, it was clear that this inspiring mammal was actually quite popular. In choosing to adapt a film around this emotionally-charged story, director Charles Martin Smith and producers would have to delicately handle true events so that they resonated with a mass audience, and there seemed no better way to accomplish that task than position Winter as a character whom moviegoers couldn’t help but love. Using a familiar cast that included a powerhouse of Morgan Freeman’s caliber and making an animal the central focus, Dolphin Tale began to resemble the type of crowd-pleaser that made 2008’s Marley & Me such a success. However, I do admit that the credibility of the film took a bit of a hit being offered in 3D, as such an angle could cheapen the sensitivity required to make a film about overcoming physical disability truly serious. Slightly skeptical but nevertheless having high hopes for Dolphin Tale, I couldn’t wait to see how this beloved animal and her amazing story would present at the theater.
Set in Florida, Dolphin Tale first introduces audiences to young loner Sawyer Nelson (Nathan Gamble), who lives with his mother, Lorraine (Ashley Judd), and one day stumbles upon an injured bottlenose dolphin caught in a crab trap. The dolphin is quickly transported to a local marine hospital run by veterinarian Clay Haskett (Harry Connick, Jr.), but the injuries to her tail are so severe that it must be amputated. Sawyer soon becomes a regular at the struggling marine hospital, befriending Clay’s young daughter, Hazel, and forming a bond with the dolphin, now named Winter. With Sawyer’s help, Winter begins to recover and learns how to swim without her tail, but it is soon revealed that her method of swimming is causing severe damage to her spine, and without some kind of change, she will soon die. Not prepared to say goodbye to his close friend, Sawyer seeks out prosthetics expert Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Morgan Freeman), who agrees to work with the marine center and fashion a revolutionary prosthetic tail for Winter. Soon enough, Winter’s inspirational story spreads and countless visitors flock to Florida in order to visit and support the brave dolphin.
If the above plot synopsis sounds even slightly heartfelt, such a revelation remains a dramatic understatement, as Dolphin Tale’s story is so engrossing, emotional, and inspiring, it is almost unbelievable. Winter is so instantaneously lovable that you will feel that you have a bond with her that is as strong as the one she shares with Sawyer, and her resonance with different kinds of prosthetic or disabled struggles is so strong that her triumph will leave you cheering. The film’s direction, dialogue, and soundtrack combine to pile on the heart so strongly that it almost unfair, but the end result is so rewarding and enriching that you will walk away filled with hope…in one particular scene, a young girl goes to visit Winter, and it is revealed that her leg has been amputated, and that powerful parallel is sure to leave you in tears. As far as the human cast goes, everyone gives a lighthearted and simplistic performance that is entertaining, and Nathan Gamble shows considerable potential, but Harry Connick, Jr. and Morgan Freeman stand out as humorous and genuinely believable in their attachment to Winter. With all of these factors combined, Dolphin Tale is a near-perfect family film, and the few small discrepancies present are easily forgivable.
As stated earlier, Dolphin Tale is undeniably inspiring for both child and adult audiences alike, but at times, the film skews towards the younger demographic and sacrifices narrative momentum. For instance, Winter has just barely survived her amputation and is struggling to recover, and then a misplaced sequence of the two children trying to fly a toy helicopter shows up, so shamelessly silly and clearly included to make some use of the wasted 3D technology that it is a little insulting. The dialogue plays to younger audience members in a few instances, and a few of the cast members (Kris Kristofferson) are underused, but in its entirety, the end result deftly blends lighthearted fun and significant empathy. In the end, these shortcomings are tolerable, as Dolphin Tale’s story swings for the fences repeatedly with undeniable success; for instance, the narrative intersperses a storyline in which Sawyer’s older cousin joins the Army and is injured, and when his plight meets Winter’s in the inspiring conclusion, I guarantee that you will tear-up in joy. Based on all of these considerations, Dolphin Tale is not only a great family film, but it is also on its way to becoming an instant classic.
From a box office perspective, Dolphin Tale couldn’t overcome audience familiarity with The Lion King, so it is understandable what direction audiences would turn when faced with two family films in theaters. However, word of mouth and positive buzz have created a near-miracle, as the film debuted in third place but jumped to the top of ticket receipts in its second weekend. With this incredibly rare occurrence due to audience attendance only dropping 27%, Dolphin Tale has already recovered its modest budget, and with so many positive reviews, moviegoer presence should remain relatively stable. I may sound gushy and overly-enthusiastic when speaking about Dolphin Tale, but trust me when I say that such behavior is only a testament to how strong the film really is as a must-see. Who knows, I’m compelled to take a trip down to Florida myself and meet Winter, because I am now definitely a fan of that wonderful dolphin.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Abduction: Short and Sweet
Aside from the legions of Twi-hards and members of Team Jacob out there, I’m sure that most audiences rolled their eyes when it was announced that Taylor Lautner would be taking the reigns of his first action film. It was definitely a gamble to let the young actor carry a potential blockbuster in the leading role, but the unique premise of this new thriller seemed rather intriguing. Director John Singleton has been noticeably absent in the past few years, but he is no stranger to the action genre after his work in 2003’s 2 Fast 2 Furious and 2005’s Four Brothers. Still, the challenge ahead of Lautner was not one he would have to bear entirely alone, as he would be accompanied by an experienced and talented cast that included Jason Isaacs, Maria Bello, Alfred Molina, and Sigourney Weaver. Based on his Twilight work alone, I was understandably skeptical of Lautner and the performance he would deliver in Abduction, but maybe, just maybe, he would end up being a pleasant surprise.
In its entirety, Abduction is pretty entertaining, but it is far from perfect, exerting far too much effort to produce a believable and engaging sequence of events. Lautner shows some potential as an action hero, but he demonstrates considerable inexperience in portraying a wide range of emotions, as he reacts in much the same way whether he is supposed to be scared, angry, or sad. Director John Singleton tries to cover up his leading man’s growing pains with dramatic camera angles and extended close-ups that are meant to be dramatic, but they reek of desperation. As far as the story goes, the premise starts out unique enough to pique audience interest, but it soon devolves into a formulaic spy thriller that echoes other action thrillers like The Bourne Identity in one too many areas. Plain and simple, Abduction illustrates that Taylor Lautner is not quite ready to branch out as a go-to-action star, but small glimpses of talent do foreshadow some promising work down the road.
Overall Recommendation: Low
In its entirety, Abduction is pretty entertaining, but it is far from perfect, exerting far too much effort to produce a believable and engaging sequence of events. Lautner shows some potential as an action hero, but he demonstrates considerable inexperience in portraying a wide range of emotions, as he reacts in much the same way whether he is supposed to be scared, angry, or sad. Director John Singleton tries to cover up his leading man’s growing pains with dramatic camera angles and extended close-ups that are meant to be dramatic, but they reek of desperation. As far as the story goes, the premise starts out unique enough to pique audience interest, but it soon devolves into a formulaic spy thriller that echoes other action thrillers like The Bourne Identity in one too many areas. Plain and simple, Abduction illustrates that Taylor Lautner is not quite ready to branch out as a go-to-action star, but small glimpses of talent do foreshadow some promising work down the road.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Abduction: Full Review
Abduction - (September 23rd, 2011): PG-13
Distributor: Lionsgate
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $10,925,253
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $15,189,000
Gross Revenue: $21,689,000
Production Budget: $35 million
Director: John Singleton
As the Twilight saga finally begins to wind down, it is understandable that its young stars try to branch out, but while Robert Pattinson had limited success in Water for Elephants and Kristen Stewart has generated buzz for her upcoming work in 2012’s Snow White and the Huntsman, Taylor Lautner seemed to be the last to step out of an established comfort zone. With Abduction, Lautner would be given a chance to showcase that he could portray more than an angst-riddled werewolf, and based on the supporting cast, it was clear that Lionsgate would be gearing to sell a potential blockbuster. Romantic interest Lily Collins gained widespread exposure for her performance in 2009’s The Blind Side, while Jason Isaacs (the Harry Potter films), Maria Bello (A History of Violence), and Alfred Molina (Spider-Man 2) have all been prevalent mainstays at theaters. The biggest surprise by far involved the presence of Hollywood legend Sigourney Weaver, who gained worldwide recognition as Ellen Ripley in the Alien series; needless to say, her inclusion alone added credibility to the project. From a marketing standpoint, Lionsgate would have little trouble convincing Twi-hards to head to the theater (especially since hundreds showed up to an open casting the film held for extras), but the big question remained: could Taylor Lautner carry his own as an action star?
Abduction introduces audiences to Nathan Harper (Taylor Lautner), a run-of-the mill high school student who lives with his parents, Kevin (Jason Isaacs) and Mara (Maria Bello), and harbors a crush for his next-door neighbor, Karen Murphy (Lily Collins). Life is perfect until Karen discovers Nathan’s photo on a missing children’s website, and as soon he decides to confront his parents on the issue, they are suddenly murdered by two mysterious agents who report to a man identified as Kozlow (Michael Nyqvist). Now on the run, Nathan and Karen attempt to contact the police but are intercepted by CIA operative Frank Burton (Alfred Molina), who informs them that they are in danger and that he will send a team to pick them up. Before they can rendezvous with Burton, Nathan runs into his psychiatrist, Dr. Geraldine Bennett (Sigourney Weaver), who claims that she serves as his “protector” and that she is a friend of his biological father’s; she also quickly warns that Burton cannot be trusted. Struggling to discover his true identity and now dodge both the CIA agents and professional assassins chasing him, Nathan must not only survive, but also protect Karen, who has been placed directly in harm’s way.
Based on premise alone, Abduction does have a number of entertaining moments, with the narrative setting up enough elements to make the story loosely plausible. For instance, Nathan is the star of the wrestling team and regularly engages in brutal combat training with his “father,” so it is not that far a stretch of the imagination to believe that he would be able to hold his own in a few fights. The premise of the story is unique enough to generate interest and overall pacing keeps an acceptable level of tension and excitement throughout. In terms of Lautner’s on-screen presence, he demonstrates some potential as a leading man, being put through the paces of action sequences and generating enough chemistry with Lily Collins, but it is clear that he is not quite ready for the sole spotlight just yet. Beyond these few glimpses of hope, Abduction still has some major shortcomings, which rather than correct, filmmakers tried to hide…poorly.
Like I mentioned before, Lautner has some potential, but his acting experience is far from fully developed, barely reacting to situations that necessitate some kind of emotional depth. Parents killed; chased and shot at by assassins; love-of-your-life finally reciprocating feelings…these deep situations simply do not warrant the exact same reaction, or lack there-of. Now, the director tries to cover up Lautner’s inexperience with dramatic close-ups and other camera tricks designed to create some kind of notion of character engagement, but more often than not, the ploy comes off cheesy and desperate: “Lautner can’t react, let’s zoom in on his face and play dramatic music, maybe that tactic will work.” As for the strong supporting cast, they are inexplicably under-used; if I was writing a script for a young actor’s first solo adventure and was fortunate enough to get Sigourney Weaver in the cast, I would put her in as many scenes as humanly possible to boost overall quality. Abduction also quickly abandons the creative premise it started with and devolves into a generic spy thriller that everyone has seen before…one scene could have been directly ripped from The Bourne Identity. To put it bluntly, if Lautner was trying to prove himself as the next go-to action star for Hollywood, this was definitely the wrong project to choose.
Absolutely no one would argue against the fact that Abduction represented a box office gamble, but if I was part of Lionsgate’s distribution team, there is no way I would have released this unproven action thriller against so much overt competition. With The Lion King 3D in its second weekend, and new releases Dolphin Tale, Killer Elite, and Moneyball, limited audiences would be undeniably split. I have to admit; almost $11 million seems pretty high for fourth place, so the film could have done far worse. With an undeniable appeal to the female demographic and a foreign presence, Abduction is slowly eating away at its production budget, which represents a far smaller hurdle to overcome than the other action entry, Killer Elite. Far from terrible, Abduction clearly doesn’t represent the next classic action thriller, but it does have entertainment value; look at it this way, in time, Lautner will not be forever relegated to the Twilight franchise.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: Lionsgate
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #4 with $10,925,253
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $15,189,000
Gross Revenue: $21,689,000
Production Budget: $35 million
Director: John Singleton
As the Twilight saga finally begins to wind down, it is understandable that its young stars try to branch out, but while Robert Pattinson had limited success in Water for Elephants and Kristen Stewart has generated buzz for her upcoming work in 2012’s Snow White and the Huntsman, Taylor Lautner seemed to be the last to step out of an established comfort zone. With Abduction, Lautner would be given a chance to showcase that he could portray more than an angst-riddled werewolf, and based on the supporting cast, it was clear that Lionsgate would be gearing to sell a potential blockbuster. Romantic interest Lily Collins gained widespread exposure for her performance in 2009’s The Blind Side, while Jason Isaacs (the Harry Potter films), Maria Bello (A History of Violence), and Alfred Molina (Spider-Man 2) have all been prevalent mainstays at theaters. The biggest surprise by far involved the presence of Hollywood legend Sigourney Weaver, who gained worldwide recognition as Ellen Ripley in the Alien series; needless to say, her inclusion alone added credibility to the project. From a marketing standpoint, Lionsgate would have little trouble convincing Twi-hards to head to the theater (especially since hundreds showed up to an open casting the film held for extras), but the big question remained: could Taylor Lautner carry his own as an action star?
Abduction introduces audiences to Nathan Harper (Taylor Lautner), a run-of-the mill high school student who lives with his parents, Kevin (Jason Isaacs) and Mara (Maria Bello), and harbors a crush for his next-door neighbor, Karen Murphy (Lily Collins). Life is perfect until Karen discovers Nathan’s photo on a missing children’s website, and as soon he decides to confront his parents on the issue, they are suddenly murdered by two mysterious agents who report to a man identified as Kozlow (Michael Nyqvist). Now on the run, Nathan and Karen attempt to contact the police but are intercepted by CIA operative Frank Burton (Alfred Molina), who informs them that they are in danger and that he will send a team to pick them up. Before they can rendezvous with Burton, Nathan runs into his psychiatrist, Dr. Geraldine Bennett (Sigourney Weaver), who claims that she serves as his “protector” and that she is a friend of his biological father’s; she also quickly warns that Burton cannot be trusted. Struggling to discover his true identity and now dodge both the CIA agents and professional assassins chasing him, Nathan must not only survive, but also protect Karen, who has been placed directly in harm’s way.
Based on premise alone, Abduction does have a number of entertaining moments, with the narrative setting up enough elements to make the story loosely plausible. For instance, Nathan is the star of the wrestling team and regularly engages in brutal combat training with his “father,” so it is not that far a stretch of the imagination to believe that he would be able to hold his own in a few fights. The premise of the story is unique enough to generate interest and overall pacing keeps an acceptable level of tension and excitement throughout. In terms of Lautner’s on-screen presence, he demonstrates some potential as a leading man, being put through the paces of action sequences and generating enough chemistry with Lily Collins, but it is clear that he is not quite ready for the sole spotlight just yet. Beyond these few glimpses of hope, Abduction still has some major shortcomings, which rather than correct, filmmakers tried to hide…poorly.
Like I mentioned before, Lautner has some potential, but his acting experience is far from fully developed, barely reacting to situations that necessitate some kind of emotional depth. Parents killed; chased and shot at by assassins; love-of-your-life finally reciprocating feelings…these deep situations simply do not warrant the exact same reaction, or lack there-of. Now, the director tries to cover up Lautner’s inexperience with dramatic close-ups and other camera tricks designed to create some kind of notion of character engagement, but more often than not, the ploy comes off cheesy and desperate: “Lautner can’t react, let’s zoom in on his face and play dramatic music, maybe that tactic will work.” As for the strong supporting cast, they are inexplicably under-used; if I was writing a script for a young actor’s first solo adventure and was fortunate enough to get Sigourney Weaver in the cast, I would put her in as many scenes as humanly possible to boost overall quality. Abduction also quickly abandons the creative premise it started with and devolves into a generic spy thriller that everyone has seen before…one scene could have been directly ripped from The Bourne Identity. To put it bluntly, if Lautner was trying to prove himself as the next go-to action star for Hollywood, this was definitely the wrong project to choose.
Absolutely no one would argue against the fact that Abduction represented a box office gamble, but if I was part of Lionsgate’s distribution team, there is no way I would have released this unproven action thriller against so much overt competition. With The Lion King 3D in its second weekend, and new releases Dolphin Tale, Killer Elite, and Moneyball, limited audiences would be undeniably split. I have to admit; almost $11 million seems pretty high for fourth place, so the film could have done far worse. With an undeniable appeal to the female demographic and a foreign presence, Abduction is slowly eating away at its production budget, which represents a far smaller hurdle to overcome than the other action entry, Killer Elite. Far from terrible, Abduction clearly doesn’t represent the next classic action thriller, but it does have entertainment value; look at it this way, in time, Lautner will not be forever relegated to the Twilight franchise.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)