Another day, another fallen hero in the world of sports. Sure, it was bound to surface sooner or later, but the timing of A-Rod’s latest steroid debacle smells an awful lot like someone’s malevolent attempt at eradicating whatever hope baseball fans had left. Think about it. He was supposed to be the game’s saving grace, the naturally gifted slugger who would eclipse every record in sight and make people forget that Barry Bonds ever put on a uniform.
Instead, he’s destined to become just another anabolically-enhanced mega man who cracked under the pressure and put the game further into a sea of uncertainty and anguish. The fact that the test results were originally said to be anonymous only exacerbates the issue, because once again we have a case where a man’s entire reputation is turned upside down in an effort to sell a few more magazines.
I, for one, can’t blame Sports Illustrated (SI) for breaking the story, because economic fragility has left many periodicals out in the cold and there’s nothing like a juicy exposé to get people buying again. Americans love to revel in the dysfunction of others, especially when those experiencing the meltdown are multi-million dollar athletes with little connection to the common man. What I find distressing about the discovery is the time at which it entered into the public domain. For those out there who haven’t been following, allow me to bring you up to speed.
Former Yankee manager Joe Torre recently released a tell-all book in which he recounts his tenure with the team and how A-Rod was so desperate to be accepted as a “true Yankee” that he developed a “Single White Female” obsession with teammate Derek Jeter. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter, because the notion is out there and it’s only a matter of time before legend and fact become one and the same. What we do know is that ever since Alex Rodríguez inked a 10-year, $252 million deal with the Texas Rangers in 2001, he’s been a marked man subject to the type of drama and ridicule usually reserved for the halls of your neighborhood high school. He’s developed a persona as a soft, baby-faced golden boy who cares more about getting inside Madonna’s pants than performing in October, so don’t expect that perception to fade any time soon. Many experts used to believe that if he won a title in New York, the scrutiny would be put to rest, but now I’m not so sure.
SI’s decision to bring the hammer down on one of the greatest players in the history of the game less than a month after the book’s release is strategic marketing at its finest and the nail in the coffin for a player who deserved better. How did it get to this point? How did A-Rod’s name become tangled up with the likes of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and other silver sluggers of the steroid era?
I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth about how everything went down, so the only chance A-Rod has of ameliorating the scandal is to come clean and, for once, not come across as a phony human being.
That’s always been my issue with him. I get the feeling that he’s so cautious in his approach to the media that he tells them what he thinks they want to hear rather than what really needs to be said. His desire to be liked and accepted by the baseball community constantly gets in the way and contributes to the “A-Fraud” mentality that so many sportswriters have adopted. He’s not Barry Bonds and shouldn’t be thrown into the same category.
Speaking of Bonds, how did his actions become tied up with A-Rod to begin with? I realize they both played in the steroid era, but the similarities are few and far between. First of all, Bonds has always been at odds with the media and he carries himself with an air of haughty entitlement that rubs a lot of fans the wrong way. He’s a bastard and he doesn’t care who knows it. Anyone who has read Game of Shadows can attest to that, so it baffles me how people deem A-Rod to be deserving of just as much hate. Deep down, I think he wants people to root for him and doesn’t care to use the media as his own personal puppet show.
As a lifelong Yankee fan, I'm upset that the upcoming season will be engulfed in another cloud of suspicion, because the acquisitions of C.C Sabathia, A.J Burnett, and Mark Teixeira should be at the forefront of discussion. GM Brian Cashman broke the bank in preparation for the new stadium and fans deserve to cheer for a team without wondering about who's currently on the juice.
Recently, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig released a statement condemning A-Rod for his behavior and expressing how he’s sick of everyone blaming the commissioner for what has happened to baseball over the last fifteen years. Okay Bud, whatever you say. You’re the same commissioner who many insiders believe turned a blind eye in the mid-90s as revenues soared and players started crushing the ball at unprecedented rates. You’re the same commissioner responsible for overseeing a 1998 campaign that saw Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa rake 70 and 66 home runs respectively without so much as a hint of investigation. As comedian Denis Leary would say, “Talk about the pot and the f@&^ing kettle!”
Selig is the George W. Bush of baseball. I’m not saying he’s entirely to blame, but how can he possibly deny any responsibility with a straight face? He sat back and allowed owners to profit from the long ball until it became politically incorrect to do so. When he realized the gig was up, he promptly came out to deliver a contrived spiel about the sanctity of records and why performance-enhancing drugs are wrong, but does anybody want to hear excuses at this point? Listening to Selig rant about steroids is like listening to Bush apologize for allowing corporate blowhards to suck the economy dry for the last eight years.
A lost cause indeed.
In the end, all that really matters is the truth and I think that’s what drove SI to run the story. Regardless of how it’s uncovered, the truth is something that will always come back to bite you in the ass, so all A-Rod can do is atone and hope it doesn’t have sharp teeth.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Oscar Beat #1
On February 22, 2009, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will come together to honor the finest cinematic efforts that 2008 had to offer. One would think that a list of nominees celebrating the likes ofAngelina Jolie, Sean Penn, and Meryl Streep would have people jumping outof their skin with anticipation, but further analysis reveals a much more sullen and subdued atmosphere than in years past. Strangely, the questionon everyone’s mind is not who will win what, but whether or not anyone at home will be watching. Perhaps it’s the shattered state of the economy or maybe it’s just the overall quality of films, but everything seems to have taken a considerable step down from what we’re used to.
According to preliminary Nielsen ratings, not even in 2007, a year thatmany film critics consider to be the most outstanding of the decade, couldthe academy muster more than a paltry 32 million viewers, so the consensus appears to be that this year’s admittedly watered-down crop won’t do much to resurrect the once heralded awards show. With box-office behemoth “The Dark Knight” and animated crowd-pleaser “Wall-E” notably absent from mostof the major categories, audiences are once again left with a docket of complex and gloomy pictures that, as usual, they’ve shown little desire to spend their hard-earned money on. Of the five nominees, only “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has grossed over $100 million domestically and its total of $116,473,266* is barely surpassed by the other four contenders combined, so the gap between what the public wants and what Hollywood deems praiseworthy appears to be widening by the day.
What is responsible for this divergence in taste? Why do general audiences favor bombastic popcorn flicks such as “Hancock” and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” over more serious fare like“Frost/Nixon” and “The Wrestler?” The most obvious reason has shown to be that people prefer not to leave the theatre with a sour taste in their mouth, because happy endings are almost always synonymous with financial success. If someone has the choice between a Will Smith superhero saga and a gritty, blood-soaked drama about a has-been professional wrestler, history has revealed that they’ll opt for the former with little hesitation. It can’t be totally based on star power, because Will Smith’s most recent tearjerker “Seven Pounds” bowed to less than $70 million*,which for him, is a significant under-achievement. No, the rift goes much deeper than that.
What we’re seeing is the emergence of two distinct factions of moviegoers that rarely see eye to eye. The first is out for nothing more than an enjoyable night at the movies with a film that doesn’t require much more than a passive concentration, while the second is looking for something that will challenge their mind and force them to actively dissect everything they’re witnessing on screen. As for which one will win out,that remains to be seen. What we do know is that as long as movies arebeing made, people will undoubtedly flock to see them regardless of the premise, because the cinema is often that one great escape.
*According to Box Office Mojo’s records as of 2/8/09
According to preliminary Nielsen ratings, not even in 2007, a year thatmany film critics consider to be the most outstanding of the decade, couldthe academy muster more than a paltry 32 million viewers, so the consensus appears to be that this year’s admittedly watered-down crop won’t do much to resurrect the once heralded awards show. With box-office behemoth “The Dark Knight” and animated crowd-pleaser “Wall-E” notably absent from mostof the major categories, audiences are once again left with a docket of complex and gloomy pictures that, as usual, they’ve shown little desire to spend their hard-earned money on. Of the five nominees, only “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” has grossed over $100 million domestically and its total of $116,473,266* is barely surpassed by the other four contenders combined, so the gap between what the public wants and what Hollywood deems praiseworthy appears to be widening by the day.
What is responsible for this divergence in taste? Why do general audiences favor bombastic popcorn flicks such as “Hancock” and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” over more serious fare like“Frost/Nixon” and “The Wrestler?” The most obvious reason has shown to be that people prefer not to leave the theatre with a sour taste in their mouth, because happy endings are almost always synonymous with financial success. If someone has the choice between a Will Smith superhero saga and a gritty, blood-soaked drama about a has-been professional wrestler, history has revealed that they’ll opt for the former with little hesitation. It can’t be totally based on star power, because Will Smith’s most recent tearjerker “Seven Pounds” bowed to less than $70 million*,which for him, is a significant under-achievement. No, the rift goes much deeper than that.
What we’re seeing is the emergence of two distinct factions of moviegoers that rarely see eye to eye. The first is out for nothing more than an enjoyable night at the movies with a film that doesn’t require much more than a passive concentration, while the second is looking for something that will challenge their mind and force them to actively dissect everything they’re witnessing on screen. As for which one will win out,that remains to be seen. What we do know is that as long as movies arebeing made, people will undoubtedly flock to see them regardless of the premise, because the cinema is often that one great escape.
*According to Box Office Mojo’s records as of 2/8/09
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Best Picture Analysis
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” – David Fincher’s larger-than-life meditation on the perils of aging is a technological gem that doesn’t cling to the traditional Hollywood notion of a happy ending. Its characters drift through life in search of some deeper spiritual connection yet rarely experience the kind of blissful payoff that makes life worth living. Instead, their happiness comes in tantalizing flashes just waiting to seize the moment when alienation borders on hopelessness.
Recently, you may have heard about the possibility of this film taking home none of the thirteen awards for which it has been nominated, but I think that’s ridiculous. The performances, direction, cinematography, special effects, and score are all worthy of recognition and shouldn’t be denied come Oscar night. People have criticized Fincher’s emotional detachment from the material, but to me, that reluctance to get too intimate is the entire point of the story.
Benjamin Button is a man stricken with the unusual condition of aging in reverse, so he’s all too aware that any relationships he forges will only end in desolation for all parties. The strength of the film depends on how each audience member responds to what they’ve just seen which, as we know, is rarely a universal sentiment. Personally, the sheer elegance and scope of the narrative spoke to me on many levels and feel that a victory would be well-deserved.
“Milk” – Sean Penn’s take on San Francisco politician Harvey Milk is likely to go down as one of the great screen performances of the decade, but the rest of Gus Van Sant’s piece is a fairly standard biopic. The trials and tribulations of Harvey Milk are captured brilliantly throughout a series of rallies and closed door meetings yet the narrative never really came alive enough for me. Just because the story is inspirational doesn’t necessarily mean that it will transfer perfectly to the screen and I think that’s what happened here.
Without Penn’s grace and willingness to take chances, nothing would’ve set this apart from all the other character studies we saw in 2008, so I’d suggest checking out “The Life and Times of Harvey Milk” to get the story right from the source. On the other hand, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, and James Franco are all outstanding and the vitality of the human spirit is on full display, so even as a straight guy, I found it very moving indeed.
“Slumdog Millionaire” – Since everyone has essentially anointed Danny Boyle’s festival darling as the film to beat, saying anything even remotely negative about it has become the sin of all sins. It’s the flashy, uplifting, yet mostly unbelievable flavor of the month that has taken on even more significance in the wake of what has happened in Mumbai. I found it very entertaining and worthy of a spot on my top ten list, but it’s just not the type of film that I feel will hold up ten years from now. People have become prisoners of the moment to this modern-day Cinderella story and looked past its obvious flaws.
For starters, Dev Patel plays the same annoying note throughout and never really moved me enough to the point that I wanted to root for his success. Maybe it was just the way the character was written, but he’s the same melodramatic sad sack from beginning to end. Also, the fact that each question coincides with an event from his life totally overextends in my opinion, but I suppose some filmgoers are just looking for that Disney-esque denouement.
“The Reader” – Of all the nominees, this is the one that has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as the others. Outside of the sublime Kate Winslet, nothing present here makes me jump out of my skin enough to want to give it a second look, so I guess we can attribute its success to the marketing prowess of Harvey Weinstein. He put a self-righteous Holocaust novel by Bernhard Schlink into the hands of director Stephen Daldry and came up with a film whose message is still begging to be deciphered.
Seriously, what exactly is the central theme here? Are we supposed to feel sorry for a woman who became a victim of her own illiteracy? Are we supposed to feel empathy for a kid who had a luscious affair with a beautiful woman twice his age only to have her disappear a few months later? Are we supposed to feel guilty for having sat back and allowed Adolf Hitler to orchestrate one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history? I’m not sure I have the answer to any of those questions, because Daldry never challenges you to pass judgment either way.
Once again, we have the case of a film trying to take on more gravity than it’s worth and leaving the audience wondering whether or not their time was well spent. As for Winslet, she’ll probably take home the hardware for her conflicted take on Hanna Schmitz and the far-superior “Revolutionary Road” will be left in the dust.
“Frost/Nixon” – The accuracy of Ron Howard’s riveting political drama has come under fire as of late, but does it really matter? He manages to take a minor historical event and turn it into an enthralling battle of wits between two men who can’t afford to lose. Every scene is played with menacing conceit by Frank Langella, who creates a Nixon able to transition between sinner and saint with frightening simplicity. His work is definitely among Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke as one of the finest performances of 2008 and I wouldn’t be surprised if his named is called.
Michael Sheen, however, seems to be the unsung hero in all this, because his placid work as David Frost has gone virtually unnoticed. Playing Frost may have been the more ambitious of the two roles due to the lack of acclaim and unfamiliarity with audiences, so Sheen should be praised for illustrating just how shrewd Frost could be when the pressure was on.
Overall, the film is top five worthy, but not quite on that winning level.
Recently, you may have heard about the possibility of this film taking home none of the thirteen awards for which it has been nominated, but I think that’s ridiculous. The performances, direction, cinematography, special effects, and score are all worthy of recognition and shouldn’t be denied come Oscar night. People have criticized Fincher’s emotional detachment from the material, but to me, that reluctance to get too intimate is the entire point of the story.
Benjamin Button is a man stricken with the unusual condition of aging in reverse, so he’s all too aware that any relationships he forges will only end in desolation for all parties. The strength of the film depends on how each audience member responds to what they’ve just seen which, as we know, is rarely a universal sentiment. Personally, the sheer elegance and scope of the narrative spoke to me on many levels and feel that a victory would be well-deserved.
“Milk” – Sean Penn’s take on San Francisco politician Harvey Milk is likely to go down as one of the great screen performances of the decade, but the rest of Gus Van Sant’s piece is a fairly standard biopic. The trials and tribulations of Harvey Milk are captured brilliantly throughout a series of rallies and closed door meetings yet the narrative never really came alive enough for me. Just because the story is inspirational doesn’t necessarily mean that it will transfer perfectly to the screen and I think that’s what happened here.
Without Penn’s grace and willingness to take chances, nothing would’ve set this apart from all the other character studies we saw in 2008, so I’d suggest checking out “The Life and Times of Harvey Milk” to get the story right from the source. On the other hand, Josh Brolin, Emile Hirsch, and James Franco are all outstanding and the vitality of the human spirit is on full display, so even as a straight guy, I found it very moving indeed.
“Slumdog Millionaire” – Since everyone has essentially anointed Danny Boyle’s festival darling as the film to beat, saying anything even remotely negative about it has become the sin of all sins. It’s the flashy, uplifting, yet mostly unbelievable flavor of the month that has taken on even more significance in the wake of what has happened in Mumbai. I found it very entertaining and worthy of a spot on my top ten list, but it’s just not the type of film that I feel will hold up ten years from now. People have become prisoners of the moment to this modern-day Cinderella story and looked past its obvious flaws.
For starters, Dev Patel plays the same annoying note throughout and never really moved me enough to the point that I wanted to root for his success. Maybe it was just the way the character was written, but he’s the same melodramatic sad sack from beginning to end. Also, the fact that each question coincides with an event from his life totally overextends in my opinion, but I suppose some filmgoers are just looking for that Disney-esque denouement.
“The Reader” – Of all the nominees, this is the one that has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as the others. Outside of the sublime Kate Winslet, nothing present here makes me jump out of my skin enough to want to give it a second look, so I guess we can attribute its success to the marketing prowess of Harvey Weinstein. He put a self-righteous Holocaust novel by Bernhard Schlink into the hands of director Stephen Daldry and came up with a film whose message is still begging to be deciphered.
Seriously, what exactly is the central theme here? Are we supposed to feel sorry for a woman who became a victim of her own illiteracy? Are we supposed to feel empathy for a kid who had a luscious affair with a beautiful woman twice his age only to have her disappear a few months later? Are we supposed to feel guilty for having sat back and allowed Adolf Hitler to orchestrate one of the largest ethnic cleansings in history? I’m not sure I have the answer to any of those questions, because Daldry never challenges you to pass judgment either way.
Once again, we have the case of a film trying to take on more gravity than it’s worth and leaving the audience wondering whether or not their time was well spent. As for Winslet, she’ll probably take home the hardware for her conflicted take on Hanna Schmitz and the far-superior “Revolutionary Road” will be left in the dust.
“Frost/Nixon” – The accuracy of Ron Howard’s riveting political drama has come under fire as of late, but does it really matter? He manages to take a minor historical event and turn it into an enthralling battle of wits between two men who can’t afford to lose. Every scene is played with menacing conceit by Frank Langella, who creates a Nixon able to transition between sinner and saint with frightening simplicity. His work is definitely among Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke as one of the finest performances of 2008 and I wouldn’t be surprised if his named is called.
Michael Sheen, however, seems to be the unsung hero in all this, because his placid work as David Frost has gone virtually unnoticed. Playing Frost may have been the more ambitious of the two roles due to the lack of acclaim and unfamiliarity with audiences, so Sheen should be praised for illustrating just how shrewd Frost could be when the pressure was on.
Overall, the film is top five worthy, but not quite on that winning level.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Top 10 of 2008
Another year gone, another top ten list just begging to be deliberated. Is it just me or did 2008 feel like something of an unsatisfactory blitz in the world of cinema? Sure, “The Dark Knight” grossed over $500 Million and a sixty-six year old Harrison Ford proved he could still quarrel with the best of them, but how many films really made you stop and go “Damn, that was incredible?”
For me, that number was significantly down from last year, but maybe I was just spoiled by the scrupulous smorgasbord that 2007 had to offer. Nevertheless, these past twelve months did serve up some truly outstanding pieces of entertainment that I feel deserve to be recognized, so without further adieu, I give you my picks for the year’s ten best:
1. “The Dark Knight” – Everyone and their grandmother ventured out at least once to experience Christopher Nolan’s brooding pop masterwork and, in the end, I just couldn’t picture any other film taking the top spot. With Heath Ledger’s treacherously nefarious tour de force at its center, this two-and-a-half-hour crime epic took the industry by storm and became something much more obscure and corrosive than any comic book adaptation could ever dream of being. I know it’s been said a million times over, but it’s dazzling in every respect.
2. “The Wrestler” - When Randy “The Ram” Robinson refers to himself as an “old, broken-down piece of meat,” I couldn’t help but think how many view Mickey Rourke in the same unflattering light and how insanely off-kilter they are in that analysis. In the performance of a lifetime, Rourke turns a grizzled professional wrestler on the brink of death into a poignant, heart rending symbol of redemption that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout every bone-crushing moment. It’s cinematic simplicity at its finest and director Darren Aronofsky somehow manages to find authentic tenderness underneath all the brutality that most skeptics of the business are quick to dismiss as a counterfeit sensation.
3. “Revolutionary Road” – Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet’s first onscreen connection since “Titanic” hits you like a tidal wave of malice and insecurity right off the bat and never lets up until only human shells are left standing. The sobering solemnity of Justin Haythe’s script may leave audiences cold and dejected, but the crackling performances and total rejection of 1950s traditionalism should leave any thoughtful filmgoer stunned by the austere beauty of it all. Dare I say better than “American Beauty?”
4. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” – Screenwriter Eric Roth employs the same whimsical formula he used in “Forrest Gump” in this stylishly composed portrait of a man who ages in reverse and again hits the jackpot. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (obviously) have an unparalleled romantic elegance that will sweep you off your feet if you let it and David Fincher’s masterful command of motion capture technology is jaw-droppingly awesome to behold. It’s definitely a film that needs to be seen in a theatre, because not even Blu-Ray can reproduce this type of larger-than-life opus.
5. “Frost/Nixon” – Michael Sheen and Frank Langella lay it all on the line in this Ron Howard-directed clash of the titans and create some of most electrifying sequences of the year. The storied interviews translate surprisingly well to the silver screen and Langella steals the show by portraying Richard M. Nixon as an enigmatic firestorm of emotion and unrequited narcissism. Arguably the finest film Howard has made since “Apollo 13.”
6. “Rachel Getting Married” – It’s amazing what can happen when a top-line director such as Jonathan Demme gets to work with a rom-com mainstay like Anne Hathaway. In this scathing exploration of a family in crisis, Hathaway channels her inner black sheep and creates a character so real and richly textured that it’s hard to believe she isn’t given more opportunities with dramatic material. Her interaction with Rosemarie DeWitt’s character is almost too piercing to watch and they play off each other splendidly throughout. Plus, any film willing to dedicate an entire scene to a contest in which two characters see who can load the dishwasher the fastest is just too great to pass up.
7. “In Bruges” – Martin McDonagh’s picturesque waltz through the streets of Belgium is the most underrated film of 2008. It’s a violent, crass, and downright hilarious look at how two hit men choose to spend their vacation and I honestly can’t believe how it managed to fall through the cracks of the upcoming awards season. Colin Farrell has never been better and Brendan Gleeson is certainly worthy of further consideration.
8. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” – As I’ve always said, I try to include a comedy every year and none of them made me laugh out loud more than this one. Jason Segel is quickly becoming one of the funniest actors on the planet and his double duty of acting and writing here takes the zaniness to whole new level. As far as its place among the Apatow stable, only time will tell, but I loved every awkwardly raunchy minute of it.
9. “Man on Wire” – Philippe Petit’s awe-inspiring tightrope walk across the World Trade Center towers is something you have to see to believe. He was relentless in his pursuit and fearless in his execution, so in a post 9/11 world, the film takes on an even greater significance and stands on its own as one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen.
10. “Slumdog Millionaire” – This nifty little crowd pleaser from Danny Boyle may very well win Best Picture, but to me, it was simply a familiar story of lost love bolstered by a smooth soundtrack and the fiercest work Boyle has done since “Trainspotting.” Dev Patel is strong as the central character and the visuals are arresting, but I’d have to see it again before being able to fully support the almost universal campaign this film has gotten since it premiered back in September.
Honorable Mention: "Red," "Milk," "Gran Torino," "Cloverfield," "Iron Man," "Snow Angels," "Quid Pro Quo," "Recount," "Lakeview Terrace," and "Tropic Thunder"
Most Overrated of the Year: "Wall-E" - Bogged down by a weak second half
Worst of the Year: "10,000 B.C.," "The Happening," "Jumper," "One Missed Call," "Shutter," "Quantum of Solace," "Righteous Kill," "Pride and Glory," and "Speed Racer"
For me, that number was significantly down from last year, but maybe I was just spoiled by the scrupulous smorgasbord that 2007 had to offer. Nevertheless, these past twelve months did serve up some truly outstanding pieces of entertainment that I feel deserve to be recognized, so without further adieu, I give you my picks for the year’s ten best:
1. “The Dark Knight” – Everyone and their grandmother ventured out at least once to experience Christopher Nolan’s brooding pop masterwork and, in the end, I just couldn’t picture any other film taking the top spot. With Heath Ledger’s treacherously nefarious tour de force at its center, this two-and-a-half-hour crime epic took the industry by storm and became something much more obscure and corrosive than any comic book adaptation could ever dream of being. I know it’s been said a million times over, but it’s dazzling in every respect.
2. “The Wrestler” - When Randy “The Ram” Robinson refers to himself as an “old, broken-down piece of meat,” I couldn’t help but think how many view Mickey Rourke in the same unflattering light and how insanely off-kilter they are in that analysis. In the performance of a lifetime, Rourke turns a grizzled professional wrestler on the brink of death into a poignant, heart rending symbol of redemption that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout every bone-crushing moment. It’s cinematic simplicity at its finest and director Darren Aronofsky somehow manages to find authentic tenderness underneath all the brutality that most skeptics of the business are quick to dismiss as a counterfeit sensation.
3. “Revolutionary Road” – Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet’s first onscreen connection since “Titanic” hits you like a tidal wave of malice and insecurity right off the bat and never lets up until only human shells are left standing. The sobering solemnity of Justin Haythe’s script may leave audiences cold and dejected, but the crackling performances and total rejection of 1950s traditionalism should leave any thoughtful filmgoer stunned by the austere beauty of it all. Dare I say better than “American Beauty?”
4. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” – Screenwriter Eric Roth employs the same whimsical formula he used in “Forrest Gump” in this stylishly composed portrait of a man who ages in reverse and again hits the jackpot. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett (obviously) have an unparalleled romantic elegance that will sweep you off your feet if you let it and David Fincher’s masterful command of motion capture technology is jaw-droppingly awesome to behold. It’s definitely a film that needs to be seen in a theatre, because not even Blu-Ray can reproduce this type of larger-than-life opus.
5. “Frost/Nixon” – Michael Sheen and Frank Langella lay it all on the line in this Ron Howard-directed clash of the titans and create some of most electrifying sequences of the year. The storied interviews translate surprisingly well to the silver screen and Langella steals the show by portraying Richard M. Nixon as an enigmatic firestorm of emotion and unrequited narcissism. Arguably the finest film Howard has made since “Apollo 13.”
6. “Rachel Getting Married” – It’s amazing what can happen when a top-line director such as Jonathan Demme gets to work with a rom-com mainstay like Anne Hathaway. In this scathing exploration of a family in crisis, Hathaway channels her inner black sheep and creates a character so real and richly textured that it’s hard to believe she isn’t given more opportunities with dramatic material. Her interaction with Rosemarie DeWitt’s character is almost too piercing to watch and they play off each other splendidly throughout. Plus, any film willing to dedicate an entire scene to a contest in which two characters see who can load the dishwasher the fastest is just too great to pass up.
7. “In Bruges” – Martin McDonagh’s picturesque waltz through the streets of Belgium is the most underrated film of 2008. It’s a violent, crass, and downright hilarious look at how two hit men choose to spend their vacation and I honestly can’t believe how it managed to fall through the cracks of the upcoming awards season. Colin Farrell has never been better and Brendan Gleeson is certainly worthy of further consideration.
8. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” – As I’ve always said, I try to include a comedy every year and none of them made me laugh out loud more than this one. Jason Segel is quickly becoming one of the funniest actors on the planet and his double duty of acting and writing here takes the zaniness to whole new level. As far as its place among the Apatow stable, only time will tell, but I loved every awkwardly raunchy minute of it.
9. “Man on Wire” – Philippe Petit’s awe-inspiring tightrope walk across the World Trade Center towers is something you have to see to believe. He was relentless in his pursuit and fearless in his execution, so in a post 9/11 world, the film takes on an even greater significance and stands on its own as one of the best documentaries I’ve ever seen.
10. “Slumdog Millionaire” – This nifty little crowd pleaser from Danny Boyle may very well win Best Picture, but to me, it was simply a familiar story of lost love bolstered by a smooth soundtrack and the fiercest work Boyle has done since “Trainspotting.” Dev Patel is strong as the central character and the visuals are arresting, but I’d have to see it again before being able to fully support the almost universal campaign this film has gotten since it premiered back in September.
Honorable Mention: "Red," "Milk," "Gran Torino," "Cloverfield," "Iron Man," "Snow Angels," "Quid Pro Quo," "Recount," "Lakeview Terrace," and "Tropic Thunder"
Most Overrated of the Year: "Wall-E" - Bogged down by a weak second half
Worst of the Year: "10,000 B.C.," "The Happening," "Jumper," "One Missed Call," "Shutter," "Quantum of Solace," "Righteous Kill," "Pride and Glory," and "Speed Racer"
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Seven Pounds, Valkyrie, Frost/Nixon, and a few quick takes
Something tells me that Gabriele Muccino’s “Seven Pounds” is primed to be one of the more divisive films of 2008. Some audiences will see it as a refined parable about sacrifice and what it means to be alive, while others will dismiss it as nothing more than an emotionally scheming tearjerker that tacks on the cheese with reckless abandon. I can’t say who’s correct, because I myself found Will Smith’s latest to contain elements of each camp’s critique and don’t think it would be fair to rail on someone for over-analyzing a movie that’s really not all that complicated to begin with.
Sure, it’s syrupy, awkward, histrionic, and borderline impractical, but I reveled in every maple-loving minute of it. Smith turns in some of the most exquisite acting of his career as suicidal IRS agent Ben Thomas and proves yet again why he might be the only actor in Hollywood capable of (pardon the pun) willing a film to box office success. He displays the ideal amount of restraint in a role that could’ve been too off-putting for its own good, so the first twenty minutes were all I needed to buy into the unexplained melancholy with which he carries himself. No film of this nature would be complete without the ravishing presence of a female lead and when Rosario Dawson comes into the picture, things instantly become engaging on a level I surely didn’t see coming.
Her chemistry with Smith rivals that of any on-screen couple this year and she’s infinitely irresistible as a woman in need of a heart transplant as well as a degree of unabated normalcy she hasn’t experienced in quite some time. Since no one appears to be discussing awards potential, her performance will most likely remain criminally underappreciated as the season goes on, which to me, is a crying shame for an actress who never gives anything but her best regardless of a film’s overall quality. I bought into their relationship every step of the way even though I had to keep reminding myself that predictability isn’t always a negative pothole for a story to fall into. Astute viewers should be able to figure out where this one is headed from the get-go, but the journey is what counts in the end, so I say go and enjoy an endearing tale that’s exactly what people are looking for during the holiday season.
- *** out of 4
The central issue I had with Bryan Singer’s semi-thriller “Valkryie” is that every time I started to get caught up in the peril of high treason, I was instantly reminded that I was watching Tom Cruise lead a film about the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler in which nearly everyone speaks English. I’m sorry, but I find it difficult to believe that Das Fuhrer himself would’ve spoken anything but German during a closed-door strategy session and feel the purpose of the project would’ve been better served through a subtitled format. Everything about it seemed rather ordinary for a WWII film, so if you go in expecting wall-to-wall combat, you’ll leave feeling unfulfilled in many respects.
As Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, Cruise is as tolerable as he needs to be and, at times, brings some of that intrepid star power fans know and love to a character that simply doesn’t translate well to the big screen. All Scientological ramblings aside, I was rooting for Cruise to prove people wrong and cement his ability to peddle quality material through his own production company. He’s terrific in “Jerry Maguire” and astonishing in “Born on the Fourth of July,” but has allowed the calamity of his personal life to overtake his reputation as an outstanding master of the craft. While not his best work, the slow-mounting tension of Christopher McQuarrie’s script should be enough to hold an audience’s attention for throughout its brisk running time.
Tom Wilkinson steals the film as Gen. Friedrich Fromm and Terence Stamp is very good as Ludwig Beck, but it ultimately feels like a bunch of regal Englishmen offering their own occasionally riveting interpretation of how the plotting came about. With the exception of a bomb going off and the eventual executions, the action is held to a minimum in favor of secret meetings and family interactions that don’t really pack the expressive punch necessary to pick up the slack. I don’t know about you, but I expected a lot better.
- ** 1/2 out of 4
In a world where American Idol shamelessly dilutes what’s left of the American music industry and Jerry Springer delivers “white trash” hi-jinx to the masses, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a network wouldn’t pay top dollar for something that just oozes with tabloid sensitivity. Yet in 1977, British talk-show host David Frost approached every major news outlet in the country looking to expose the origins of the Watergate scandal and was essentially hung out to dry with little or no explanation. The forte of Ron Howard’s masterful “Frost/Nixon” is that it takes you deep inside one man’s struggle for credibility and how he literally banked his entire livelihood on the notion that former president Richard M. Nixon would give people the apology they always knew they deserved.
Michael Sheen and Frank Langella dive into their characters without hesitation and immerse themselves in a high energy battle of wits that neither of them can afford to lose. Langella owns every inch of this film as "Tricky Dick" and presents him as a bitter, conniving dignitary who eventually fell victim to his own narcissistic desire to control everything in sight. He’s what Sade would call a “smooth operator” due to his ability to weave in and out of questioning and the way he plays Frost like a pinball machine during the early stages is truly a thrill to watch. Expect a great deal of acclaim to be sent Langella’s way over the next few months for this stellar embodiment of a fallen American original.
Sheen, on the other hand, injects Frost with the slightest hint of haughtiness and cheery exultation at first, but when the pressure is on, he’s more than capable of turning on the jets and matching Langella note for note. We’re rooting for him all the way and the final day of the interview makes for some of the most on-the-edge-of-your-seat filmmaking I’ve seen all year.
Under the first-class direction of Howard, they’re able to recreate a stunning piece of television history in triumphant fashion and almost portray the ex-president in a sympathetic light people will have to see to believe. As far as the order of events is concerned, does it really matter? Every part of this film feels authentic and if you can get your audience to fully believe in what they’re seeing, I’d say you’ve already far surpassed many films on the market today.
- **** out 4
"Milk" - Sean Penn has become the chameleonic actor of our time and turns in another phenomenal performance as San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. It's not the best of the year, but it should take on a deeper meaning in the wake of California's Proposition 8.
- *** 1/2 out of 4
"Quantum of Solace" - Bourne. Jason Bourne. Oh, I'm sorry. For a minute there I thought that Mark Forster's ponderous revenge project was actually the fourth installment of Robert Ludlum's amnesiac spy thriller. I kind of wish it was, because that way the darkness and complete lack of affection for anything would've been right at home.
- ** out of 4
"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" - Hysterical, raunchy, over-the-top, and still sweet to the core. Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks are perfectly cast as two goof-offs who resort to porn to pay the bills and in today's financially strapped times, it might not be that off-base.
- *** out of 4
Sure, it’s syrupy, awkward, histrionic, and borderline impractical, but I reveled in every maple-loving minute of it. Smith turns in some of the most exquisite acting of his career as suicidal IRS agent Ben Thomas and proves yet again why he might be the only actor in Hollywood capable of (pardon the pun) willing a film to box office success. He displays the ideal amount of restraint in a role that could’ve been too off-putting for its own good, so the first twenty minutes were all I needed to buy into the unexplained melancholy with which he carries himself. No film of this nature would be complete without the ravishing presence of a female lead and when Rosario Dawson comes into the picture, things instantly become engaging on a level I surely didn’t see coming.
Her chemistry with Smith rivals that of any on-screen couple this year and she’s infinitely irresistible as a woman in need of a heart transplant as well as a degree of unabated normalcy she hasn’t experienced in quite some time. Since no one appears to be discussing awards potential, her performance will most likely remain criminally underappreciated as the season goes on, which to me, is a crying shame for an actress who never gives anything but her best regardless of a film’s overall quality. I bought into their relationship every step of the way even though I had to keep reminding myself that predictability isn’t always a negative pothole for a story to fall into. Astute viewers should be able to figure out where this one is headed from the get-go, but the journey is what counts in the end, so I say go and enjoy an endearing tale that’s exactly what people are looking for during the holiday season.
- *** out of 4
The central issue I had with Bryan Singer’s semi-thriller “Valkryie” is that every time I started to get caught up in the peril of high treason, I was instantly reminded that I was watching Tom Cruise lead a film about the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler in which nearly everyone speaks English. I’m sorry, but I find it difficult to believe that Das Fuhrer himself would’ve spoken anything but German during a closed-door strategy session and feel the purpose of the project would’ve been better served through a subtitled format. Everything about it seemed rather ordinary for a WWII film, so if you go in expecting wall-to-wall combat, you’ll leave feeling unfulfilled in many respects.
As Col. Claus von Stauffenberg, Cruise is as tolerable as he needs to be and, at times, brings some of that intrepid star power fans know and love to a character that simply doesn’t translate well to the big screen. All Scientological ramblings aside, I was rooting for Cruise to prove people wrong and cement his ability to peddle quality material through his own production company. He’s terrific in “Jerry Maguire” and astonishing in “Born on the Fourth of July,” but has allowed the calamity of his personal life to overtake his reputation as an outstanding master of the craft. While not his best work, the slow-mounting tension of Christopher McQuarrie’s script should be enough to hold an audience’s attention for throughout its brisk running time.
Tom Wilkinson steals the film as Gen. Friedrich Fromm and Terence Stamp is very good as Ludwig Beck, but it ultimately feels like a bunch of regal Englishmen offering their own occasionally riveting interpretation of how the plotting came about. With the exception of a bomb going off and the eventual executions, the action is held to a minimum in favor of secret meetings and family interactions that don’t really pack the expressive punch necessary to pick up the slack. I don’t know about you, but I expected a lot better.
- ** 1/2 out of 4
In a world where American Idol shamelessly dilutes what’s left of the American music industry and Jerry Springer delivers “white trash” hi-jinx to the masses, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a network wouldn’t pay top dollar for something that just oozes with tabloid sensitivity. Yet in 1977, British talk-show host David Frost approached every major news outlet in the country looking to expose the origins of the Watergate scandal and was essentially hung out to dry with little or no explanation. The forte of Ron Howard’s masterful “Frost/Nixon” is that it takes you deep inside one man’s struggle for credibility and how he literally banked his entire livelihood on the notion that former president Richard M. Nixon would give people the apology they always knew they deserved.
Michael Sheen and Frank Langella dive into their characters without hesitation and immerse themselves in a high energy battle of wits that neither of them can afford to lose. Langella owns every inch of this film as "Tricky Dick" and presents him as a bitter, conniving dignitary who eventually fell victim to his own narcissistic desire to control everything in sight. He’s what Sade would call a “smooth operator” due to his ability to weave in and out of questioning and the way he plays Frost like a pinball machine during the early stages is truly a thrill to watch. Expect a great deal of acclaim to be sent Langella’s way over the next few months for this stellar embodiment of a fallen American original.
Sheen, on the other hand, injects Frost with the slightest hint of haughtiness and cheery exultation at first, but when the pressure is on, he’s more than capable of turning on the jets and matching Langella note for note. We’re rooting for him all the way and the final day of the interview makes for some of the most on-the-edge-of-your-seat filmmaking I’ve seen all year.
Under the first-class direction of Howard, they’re able to recreate a stunning piece of television history in triumphant fashion and almost portray the ex-president in a sympathetic light people will have to see to believe. As far as the order of events is concerned, does it really matter? Every part of this film feels authentic and if you can get your audience to fully believe in what they’re seeing, I’d say you’ve already far surpassed many films on the market today.
- **** out 4
"Milk" - Sean Penn has become the chameleonic actor of our time and turns in another phenomenal performance as San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. It's not the best of the year, but it should take on a deeper meaning in the wake of California's Proposition 8.
- *** 1/2 out of 4
"Quantum of Solace" - Bourne. Jason Bourne. Oh, I'm sorry. For a minute there I thought that Mark Forster's ponderous revenge project was actually the fourth installment of Robert Ludlum's amnesiac spy thriller. I kind of wish it was, because that way the darkness and complete lack of affection for anything would've been right at home.
- ** out of 4
"Zack and Miri Make a Porno" - Hysterical, raunchy, over-the-top, and still sweet to the core. Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks are perfectly cast as two goof-offs who resort to porn to pay the bills and in today's financially strapped times, it might not be that off-base.
- *** out of 4
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Changeling and Gran Torino
Clint Eastwood’s overlong period piece “Changeling” is anchored by a resolutely eloquent performance from Angelina Jolie that just reeks of Academy appeal to the point that expectations have become a little too hot to handle. She pours her heart and soul into the role of Christine Collins, a telephone operator whose son goes missing in 1928 Los Angeles, but what does she get in return? The film has so many staggering scenarios taking place at once yet refuses to commit to any of them long enough to make a real statement. Is the child found really her son and, if so, where was he all that time? Also, if he’s not her son, who is the boy that was returned to her and why did the ham-fisted pen pushers at the LAPD think that she wouldn’t recognize her own flesh and blood?
Sure, these questions are answered to some degree, but something still didn’t sit well with me by the time film came to a close. Without spoiling too much, I’ll simply point out that this apparently true story takes a wicked left turn after the first hour and becomes something much more grim and sepulchral than previously expected. In reality, we’re given three interesting films all piled into one ambitiously dense project that is terrific at times, but rather pedestrian at others. The first involves a grieving mother forced to endure hellish treatment just to get her son home safely, the second is a murky courtroom exposé on widespread corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department, and the third is a subdued tale of how far some people are willing to fall in the name of justice. Individually, they may take on deeper sensibilities, but together they get bogged down by too many questionable alterations in tone.
On the bright side, Jolie and John Malkovich as a fiery pastor are stellar throughout and Eastwood’s ability to turn J. Michael Straczynski’s intriguing script into a compelling amalgam of utter chaos in 1930’s L.A. is reason enough to withstand the sections that fall short of greatness.
- *** out of 4
If “Gran Torino” is indeed Clint Eastwood’s swan song to the acting community, I’d say that he certainly went out with the kind of rugged explosiveness we’ve come to expect from the Hollywood legend. As bigoted Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski, he creates a gruff, weathered old iconoclast who guzzles beer on his porch and doesn’t take kindly to those who think he’s too old to engage in any form of manual labor. He’s the product of a do-it-yourself generation raised on consumption and optimism yet his experiences in combat have left him deeply embittered about the tenuous deterioration of the society around him. Think Harry Callahan on Medicare, because when health concerns arise, the thrill of the fight is simply too lucid to waste time in a doctor’s office waiting for test results.
Believe it or not, his only outlet for discussion appears to be an over-zealous priest interested in counseling him following the death of his wife, which of course Walt wants no part of. It’s not until a Hmong family moves in next door that we see him display any emotion other than fanatical profanity, so the chance for redemption actually seems like a welcomed addition to the Kowalski exterior. When the son of the family becomes involved in gang activity, Walt decides to take him under his wing and, in a sense, make him more of a son than his real son ever was. Their relationship is hostile at first, but as the gang’s pressure intensifies, the mutual respect they have for one another transcends whatever racial prejudice Walt still maintains after all these years.
Now, it wouldn’t be a Clint Eastwood movie without a little high-wire intensity to boot and after the gang attacks the boy’s sister, the revenge theme takes on a whole new dimension. Walt unleashes the arsenal through a series of bloody confrontations that leave him in a difficult situation regarding how everything is going to play out in the end. Never has the phrase “Get Off My Lawn” been played to such menacing effect and in the hands Walt it becomes a statement of virile intimidation designed to let people know he mean’s business.
Since Eastwood also directed, the plot trajectory is anything but upbeat, so don’t expect a fairy tale where everyone sits around reminiscing about the good ol’ days. This is a serious examination of a guy trying to get one last chance at a good deed that will finally put him at peace with his torrid past. My only complaint would be that the supporting cast wasn’t quite up to the challenge, but to watch Eastwood do what he does for possibly the final time is all any diehard cinephile can ask for.
- *** ½ out of 4
Sure, these questions are answered to some degree, but something still didn’t sit well with me by the time film came to a close. Without spoiling too much, I’ll simply point out that this apparently true story takes a wicked left turn after the first hour and becomes something much more grim and sepulchral than previously expected. In reality, we’re given three interesting films all piled into one ambitiously dense project that is terrific at times, but rather pedestrian at others. The first involves a grieving mother forced to endure hellish treatment just to get her son home safely, the second is a murky courtroom exposé on widespread corruption in the Los Angeles Police Department, and the third is a subdued tale of how far some people are willing to fall in the name of justice. Individually, they may take on deeper sensibilities, but together they get bogged down by too many questionable alterations in tone.
On the bright side, Jolie and John Malkovich as a fiery pastor are stellar throughout and Eastwood’s ability to turn J. Michael Straczynski’s intriguing script into a compelling amalgam of utter chaos in 1930’s L.A. is reason enough to withstand the sections that fall short of greatness.
- *** out of 4
If “Gran Torino” is indeed Clint Eastwood’s swan song to the acting community, I’d say that he certainly went out with the kind of rugged explosiveness we’ve come to expect from the Hollywood legend. As bigoted Korean War veteran Walt Kowalski, he creates a gruff, weathered old iconoclast who guzzles beer on his porch and doesn’t take kindly to those who think he’s too old to engage in any form of manual labor. He’s the product of a do-it-yourself generation raised on consumption and optimism yet his experiences in combat have left him deeply embittered about the tenuous deterioration of the society around him. Think Harry Callahan on Medicare, because when health concerns arise, the thrill of the fight is simply too lucid to waste time in a doctor’s office waiting for test results.
Believe it or not, his only outlet for discussion appears to be an over-zealous priest interested in counseling him following the death of his wife, which of course Walt wants no part of. It’s not until a Hmong family moves in next door that we see him display any emotion other than fanatical profanity, so the chance for redemption actually seems like a welcomed addition to the Kowalski exterior. When the son of the family becomes involved in gang activity, Walt decides to take him under his wing and, in a sense, make him more of a son than his real son ever was. Their relationship is hostile at first, but as the gang’s pressure intensifies, the mutual respect they have for one another transcends whatever racial prejudice Walt still maintains after all these years.
Now, it wouldn’t be a Clint Eastwood movie without a little high-wire intensity to boot and after the gang attacks the boy’s sister, the revenge theme takes on a whole new dimension. Walt unleashes the arsenal through a series of bloody confrontations that leave him in a difficult situation regarding how everything is going to play out in the end. Never has the phrase “Get Off My Lawn” been played to such menacing effect and in the hands Walt it becomes a statement of virile intimidation designed to let people know he mean’s business.
Since Eastwood also directed, the plot trajectory is anything but upbeat, so don’t expect a fairy tale where everyone sits around reminiscing about the good ol’ days. This is a serious examination of a guy trying to get one last chance at a good deed that will finally put him at peace with his torrid past. My only complaint would be that the supporting cast wasn’t quite up to the challenge, but to watch Eastwood do what he does for possibly the final time is all any diehard cinephile can ask for.
- *** ½ out of 4
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Pride and Glory and Rachel Getting Married
Gavin O’Connor tries hard to infuse his latest effort “Pride and Glory” with the kind of ethically challenged street beat usually expected from stark police procedurals, but for the life of me, I just couldn’t get excited about anything he brings to the table. Coming on the heels of last year’s vastly superior “We Own the Night,” this film features an almost identical plot minus any authentic suspense or reason to spend two-plus hours on a soulless piece of wannabe commercial nihilism. The talents of Edward Norton, Jon Voight, and Noah Emmerich are much too intricate to be wasted in such appalling fashion, so don’t be fooled if the trailer makes it out to be a hard-boiled cop drama featuring the stars of “Fight Club” and “Midnight Cowboy.”
If you still find yourself maintaining the slightest morsel of curiosity, might I provide you with a tip on how to avoid what the Gin Blossoms refer to as a “new miserable experience.” Think about the most insufferable professorial diatribe you’ve ever had to endure and how you found yourself locked into a staring contest with the minute hand only to find that there’s still thirty minutes left before freedom can be achieved. Yes, I think that pretty much covers it.
- ** out of 4
Picture the most excruciatingly overcooked wedding you’ve ever attended and multiply it by a thousand, because only then will you have any semblance of the demonstrative hodgepodge that is “Rachel Getting Married.” In his finest film since 1991’s Academy Award juggernaut “The Silence of the Lambs,” director Jonathan Demme pulls a Spinal Tap by turning the subversive animosity up to eleven and letting his cast create a blowout so extravagant that I couldn’t help but wonder if he was testing the audience’s tolerance for awkward familial strife.
Seriously, there were moments where I wasn’t sure whether to laugh, cry, squirm, or simply be thankful that I never had to experience an event quite like this one. Then again, everything I just described is what makes it one of the best films of the year, which in 2008, is a phrase I haven’t been able to use nearly as often as I like.
Anne Hathaway gives a performance so mannered and in tune with the misery of real-life addiction that it’s clear she’s more than just a pretty face reserved for the monotony of rom-com clockwork. As Kym, she’s bare, vulnerable, uncompromising, and always capable of ruining an evening with one spasmodic slip of the tongue. The tragedy of her personal life dictates how she’s treated by the rest of the family, so allowing her a weekend pass from rehab to attend the wedding of a sister who despises her every move carries with it the possibility of relationships being severed beyond repair. What really makes this film tick is Hathaway and Rosemarie DeWitt constantly one-upping each other in terms of infantile eruptions aimed at getting the spotlight put back on them, so be prepared for a searing sibling rivalry that Dr. Phil can only dream about exacerbating on national television.
Sure, Rachel does end up getting married and Kym certainly commits her share of indiscretions along the way, but unlike most films, the invitation for the happy ending was lost in the mail. Instead, the characters are at a crossroads, left to trudge through the emotional wreckage wondering whether or not the good times will ever be heard from again. That’s how life goes. You choose a path, encounter adversity, and, if religious, pray that better days are coming to make the struggle seem like a necessary hurdle on the road to success and personal fulfillment. For Kym, the fact that her family has all but disowned her means that those hurdles appear that much higher and more glaringly out of reach.
- **** out of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)