REVIEW: Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch (2011): Dir. Zack Snyder. Written by: Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya. Story by: Zack Snyder. Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Oscar Isaac, Carla Gugino, Jon Hamm, Scott Glenn and Gerard Plunkett. Rated PG-13 (thematic material involving sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language). Running time: 126 minutes.

1 star (out of four)

The world of Sucker Punch is like the idyllic fantasy of a teenage boy who knows nothing of the outside world that hasn’t been presented to him in a video game. It is a world where the women are multidimensional only in their figures, where hackneyed one-liners pass as wisdom, and where gunfights occur not for any purpose but to fulfill the CGI quota. Writer-director Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) has committed such cinematic offenses before but never in such quick succession and with so little in the way of justifiable context (also known as story). If Sucker Punch does have one thing going for it, it’s that the film is unapologetically childish, indulging in its “babes with guns” narrative just because.

In a prologue free of dialogue but heavy on slow motion, we learn that our pigtailed heroine (Emily Browning) – who gets no name other than Baby Doll – has just lost her mother, leaving her and her sister alone with their evil stepfather (Gerard Plunkett). He steals some creepy glances at them at the funeral and when he sexually assaults the sister, Baby Doll takes action. Unfortunately, her shot misses its target and she kills her sister instead, a mistake that lands her in an institution for the criminally insane.

Talk about jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire; the whole institution appears to be run by slimy perverts who take turns ogling the all-female patients. Leading the pack is an orderly named Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac) who asserts considerable authority in the asylum. He strikes a deal with the stepfather to ensure that Baby Doll is lobotomized before the police have a chance to question her and learn about any extenuating circumstances surrounding her crime. Why Blue would do such a terrible thing is baffling, though I suppose there is an unspoken understanding amongst movie pervs in situations like this.

From here the movie muddies up reality and the institution becomes a high-class brothel where Baby Doll and her fellow inmate babes learn to dance from the on-staff therapist, Dr. Vera Gorsky (Carla Gugino). Under the supervision of Blue, Dr. Gorsky prepares her patients for regular performances where they dance and service high-paying clients. Needless to say, the girls want to escape.

Baby Doll turns out to be a mesmerizing dancer, but we never actually see her moves. Whenever she starts to dance, the film transports us to computer-animated set pieces where she battles all sorts of foes. Outside a snowy dojo, she fights giant, mechanical samurai. In the trenches of WWI, she and the other girls slaughter German cyborgs. Next, they break into a castle to kill a dragon. Then they must stop a runaway train that holds a bomb guarded by futuristic robots. A mysterious man (Scott Glenn) acts like the Charlie to their Angels, appearing every time we enter the fantasy realm to explain what they need to do. In each case, Baby Doll must procure a tool that will aid her and her friends in their escape: a map, fire, a knife, a key.

The action scenes, exquisitely rendered though they may be, are all superfluous. The girls go through a lot of trouble to obtain the items in the fantasy worlds but they also have to find them in reality, which more or less nullifies the need for the elaborate action. The action itself often plays out like self-parody – absurd but not quite campy – in a feeble attempt to emulate every style of action present in the post-Matrix, post-Kill Bill cinematic landscape.

Though the movie borrows elements from a number of its contemporaries, this is the first entirely original feature from Zack Snyder, who previously remade Dawn of the Dead and adapted the graphic novels 300 and Watchmen. With Sucker Punch, he tries too hard to assert himself as the new fanboy auteur.

Mr. Snyder is not an untalented director and, for better or worse, he has a style he can call his own, but he could benefit from exercising a little restraint. To emphasize his film’s uncertain hold on reality, he underlines every scene with lyrically resonant songs (“Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This),” “Where Is My Mind?”, “White Rabbit”). His overuse of slow motion and color saturation quickly grow tiresome. He overcompensates for a lack of substance with an excess of style.

One also wonders, with all the girl-power ass kicking his heroines deal out, if Mr. Snyder believes he has made a feminist film. For those wondering: he has not. Every woman in Sucker Punch is sexualized with scanty clothes and when they’re not firing automatic weapons, they’re giggling and fawning over each other in the dressing room. Mr. Snyder also proves himself adept at creating phallic imagery. The swords, the guns, the knife, the half-burnt cigar, the slit dragon’s neck, the train. Yes, yes, we get it!

There are a few moments, however, when the movie breaks from its self-imposed seriousness and provides some much-needed self-awareness. When asked by Dr. Gorka to rehearse a scene featuring a girl in a mental asylum, a patient named Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) objects. She gets why she’s dressed up like a schoolgirl and she understands how being drugged up might be a turn-on. But lobotomized vegetable? That’s too much. That Mr. Snyder is aware of what he’s doing to his actresses, however, only makes his degradation of them worse.

Maybe there is a way to view Sucker Punch from a feminist angle though. Let the sadistic orderly Blue Jones stand in for Mr. Snyder; the patients, symbols for the very actresses in the film. Now the movie becomes something of a tragedy where performing women sacrifice themselves to escape the prying eyes of an audience who demands to see their fantasies played out before them. That film might be a little heavy-handed, but it would no doubt be better than this mess.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/26/11

REVIEW: Limitless

Limitless (2011): Dir. Neil Burger. Written by: Leslie Dixon, based on the novel, The Dark Fields, by Alan Glynn. Starring: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert DeNiro, Andrew Howard, Johnny Whitworth and Tomas Arana. Rated PG-13 (thematic material involving a drug, violence including disturbing images, sexuality and language). Running time: 105 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

You know how they say we only use twenty percent of our brains? A new, experimental drug called NZT-48 offers you the ability to access all one hundred percent, explains a character in Limitless. All those little bits of half-forgotten information that float through our subconscious are suddenly accessible. You can become fluent in entire languages just by giving a cursory listen to an instructional tape.

According to Wikipedia, that bit about our brains is a myth, but regardless, this is the conceit Limitless, the new thriller starring Bradley Cooper, rests on. The film is clever about its phony science though, and invites viewers not think too much about its plot, even while its hero is thinking overtime.

Cooper plays Eddie Morra, a science fiction writer whose life is in shambles. His girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) dumps him because he can’t get it together. The deadline for his novel is fast approaching and he hasn’t written a word. When his former brother-in-law (Johnny Whitworth) tells him about a pill that will cure his writer’s block, he gives it a shot. What does he have to lose?

The pill works like an extreme Adderall, giving him the focus to finish his novel in four days. But its power doesn’t stop there. On the drug, he has the capability to absorb information at lightning speeds. After one day of studying stock exchange trends, he becomes a Wall Street superstar. And how else should he use his newfound brainpower but for the pursuit of sensual pleasures? One day he’s loafing around his dirty apartment, the next he’s cliff diving and mingling with the cultural elite. No wonder his girlfriend takes a new interest him.

Naturally, Eddie’s sudden success catches a few people’s eyes. There’s an influential business tycoon (Robert De Niro in a now-typical supporting role for the actor), a Russian loan shark (Andrew Howard) and a mysterious stalker (Tomas Arana). We also learn that there is a darker side to taking the pill, which gives the film a dash of Hitchcockian flair. The story twists and turns more than one might expect and the film mostly remembers to tie up all the loose ends. When the credits roll there are a few unanswered questions and if the ending isn’t quite a cheat, it’s certainly lazy.

Still, Limitless moves by at a brisk pace and offers its share of pleasures. As the wily Russian, Andrew Howard is a delight, appearing when we least expect him and chewing up the scenery real good. The film is often also quite funny and is clever in its presentation of the miracle drug. When Eddie is called upon to fight some thugs in the subway, we see how dusty memories of Bruce Lee movies emerge from the recesses of his mind to teach him martial arts. That this particular scene isn’t nearly as goofy as it sounds is a testament to the film’s style, which is as flashy as Eddie’s new lifestyle. Director Neil Burger gives the movie a number of clever, visual touches to bring us inside his hero’s drug-induced super-mind.

Bradley Cooper is great aid to the film and a strong choice for the lead. He’s charismatic enough to stay likable in the character’s most arrogant moments, but he has an inherent everyman quality that makes him relatable as well. Cooper is believable as an ill-groomed slacker in the film’s early scenes and equally convincing as a self-assured playboy after the pill’s effects take hold.

Unfortunately, Limitless isn’t quite as brilliant as its protagonist. The unnecessary voice-over narration, funny though it is at times, tends to over explain the plot. There are also a few wasted opportunities for strong supporting characters. Abbie Cornish isn’t given much to do as the beautiful girlfriend and despite Robert De Niro’s presence as the powerful entrepreneur, there is little memorable about the character or his performance.

The implications of a pill that can make you a genius are vast and there are a number of ways in which the plot of Limitless could have gone. Eddie mentions in the voice-over that he wants to change the world with his powers. Exactly how, he never says. Mostly he seems to be enjoying the good life and the film indulges in his fantasies, making Limitless an exciting, if decidedly limited, piece of entertainment.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/25/11

REVIEW: Rango

Rango (2011): Dir. Gore Verbinski. Written by John Logan. Featuring the voices of Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty and Bill Nighy. Rated PG (rude humor, action, language and smoking). Running time: 107 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

In the crowded market of computer-animated films, Rango comes as a delightful relief. A clever homage to classic westerns with enough wit and charm for two movies, this is one of the best animated comedies in recent years.

Johnny Depp voices the Chameleon With No Name, a pet who unwittingly ends up in the Mojave Desert after his terrarium falls off the back of a truck. He soon finds the town of Dirt, a relic of the Old West populated by an assortment of reptiles and rodents. The locals at the town saloon quickly size him up as an outsider, but our hero sees this as an opportunity to reinvent himself. He has a penchant for the dramatic – in the opening scene, we see him acting out Shakespeare with his tank accessories – so he invents a persona: the infamous Rango. That he should be called upon to prove his skills with a six-shooter does not initially cross his mind, but of course his big talk is soon put to the test. When he inadvertently saves the town from a hawk, he is promoted to sheriff.

Meanwhile, the town faces a drought. This is particularly troublesome considering the town’s water-based economy. Inside the bank’s safe is a blue water cooler that’s getting dangerously low. A plucky iguana named Beans (voiced by Isla Fisher), however, knows about a pipe where water is being mysteriously dumped into the desert. She suspects the corrupt mayor (a tortoise voiced by Ned Beatty) may be behind the town’s ill fortunes and turns to Rango, the town’s new hero, for help.

Fans of westerns – or Chinatown – know where the film is heading and that’s part of the fun. Rango borrows liberally from a number of films – in particular, the central conflict is directly lifted from that Roman Polanski classic – but never feels stale or familiar. The film wears its influences proudly; its plot is a pastiche of scenes and storylines from the great westerns and Rango takes great pleasure in reinventing these genre conventions. The references to other films aren’t merely in-jokes for the parents in the audience to chuckle at. They infuse the story with energy and humor.

The film is also exceptionally smart. Most of today’s animated fare (not bearing the Pixar brand) is too eager to cater to young audiences by dumbing down the story. Even the good ones have a tendency to move the plot along at breakneck speeds, as if the slightest dip in energy will lose a child’s interest. Rango takes time to develop its characters and allows the plot to twist and take unexpected detours. Admittedly, the film loses a little steam in its midsection, though it quickly picks up again.

The script is immensely clever. There are plenty of one-liners and the film boasts a big vocabulary (this is the wordiest animated film since Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox), but the film is not trapped by its cleverness. Rather than providing slapstick jokes for the kids and innuendos for the adults to catch, Rango’s jokes have universal appeal. This is an animated comedy that is simply very funny.

Johnny Depp’s voice acting is a great aid to the film. I’m often hesitant to embrace big name stars in animated films, but Depp is a strong choice for this sort of piteous everyman character. The actor has played a lot of larger-than-life characters in recent years and Rango reminds us how well he fits quieter roles, even if he only lends his voice here.

Industrial Light & Magic animated the film (a first for the special effects company), and the computer animation looks fantastic. Dirt is a richly detailed town with vibrant character. Its inhabitants have a woebegone charm as they scowl and hobble their way down the town’s main street. One character has an arrow stuck in his eye that pokes out the back of his head but he doesn’t seem to mind.

Director Gore Verbinski, who previously helmed the three Pirates films, appears to have had no trouble venturing into animation. He was also behind the unjustly unloved The Weather Man, and I wonder if his real talent is for comedies and not blockbuster epics.

In the avalanche of computer animated movies continually vying for audiences’ attentions, Rango stands a head above the rest. It offers an inventive story and strong characters over tired retreads and sequels, and intellect and humor over 3D glasses.

- Steve Avigliano, 3/5/11

Oscar Reactions 2011

Strange that year after year I watch the Academy Awards – I even get a little excited for them – expecting… Well, I don’t expect much but maybe there’s some hope in me that this year will be less boring than last. Or at least shorter. I understand of course that the Academy has a very passionate sense of self-importance to maintain, but would a two hour telecast really dampen any of the prestige? Would it kill them to cut the filler and streamline the thing? At one point, Anne Hathaway introduced Hilary Swank who introduced Kathryn Bigelow who then announced the nominees for Best Director. Was that necessary?

Hathaway and co-host James Franco had some funny moments but like many other hosts in recent years, they disappeared for stretches of time and had me wondering why the Academy even bothers with hosts if all they do is reintroduce the ceremony after a commercial break? Why not cut every other piece of fluff in the show and allow the hosts to let loose and act like real MCs? Still, I liked that they poked fun at their “younger demographic” appeal and they seemed to be having fun.

The acceptance speeches are another problem. The Academy apparently asks the nominees each year to refrain from long-winded “Thank you” speeches, a piece of advice that is continually ignored. David Seidler, who won Best Original Screenplay for The King’s Speech, was an exception, if only because he appeared to have put thought and effort into his speech.

Looking back at my predictions from last month, I guessed a pitiful 12 out of 24 correct. Over the last few weeks I conceded that my initial projection of The Social Network taking the top prizes was not going to pan out, but I missed a lot more categories than those. I was happy though to see Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s unconventional and affecting score for The Social Network win.

For me, The King’s Speech was not the year’s best film, but I rather liked Steven Spielberg’s gentle reminder before announcing the winner that many a great film failed to score the most votes in their respective year.

So that’s that. The movie industry can return to business as usual until next winter. Though if studios and journalists didn’t build up an unreasonable level excitement for the Oscars months prior to the ceremony, I can’t imagine how I’d ever be able to sit through the damn thing.

- Steve Avigliano, 2/28/11

And They're Off!: Predictions for the 2011 Oscar Race

Last week I spent a fair amount of digital space dismissing the Academy Awards and arguing that the winners are rarely representative of the year’s best. Today I’m going spend even space more doing much the opposite. Oscar nominations were announced yesterday morning, setting off the month-long period of guessing and trying to predict the winners and I’m joining the noise too because… well, because it’s fun. What follows are my early predictions for the winners in addition to my choices for who I would vote for in the major categories if I had a ballot.

Last year I got 15 out of 24 by guessing the morning of the Oscars. Let’s see how I do predicting the winners a month in advance.

BEST PICTURE

The nominees: Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter’s Bone

My Prediction: The Social Network. Now that the nominees have been announced, The King’s Speech is front-and-center with the most nominations, but my money is that the story of Facebook will stay strong through Oscar night. The movie has everything going for it. Impressive on a technical level and an absorbing human story too. Plus, this is the year everyone started talking about Facebook. The film’s good fortune of being so topical should work in its favor.

My Vote: Black Swan. On my own Top 10 list, Toy Story 3 was my sentimental favorite and Pixar will easily scoop up their umpteenth award for Best Animated Film. If I had a ballot to fill out though, Darren Aronofsky’s surreal, sexual nightmare would get my vote. The film is a virtuosic achievement and in many ways, was the film that most impressed me this year.

BEST DIRECTOR

The nominees: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), David O. Russell (The Fighter), Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech), David Fincher (The Social Network), Joel and Ethan Coen (True Grit)

My Prediction: David Fincher. Even if The King’s Speech manages to nab Best Picture, Fincher will still win this. So much of the film’s success relies on what he does with the material. No one could have told this story the way Fincher does and this year the Academy will recognize his distinctive voice.

My Vote: David Fincher. I choose Fincher for all of the aforementioned reasons plus, with a slew of unrecognized (but great) films behind him (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac), he deserves this.

BEST ACTOR

The nominees: Javier Bardem (Biutiful), Jeff Bridges (True Grit), Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network), Colin Firth (The King’s Speech), James Franco (127 Hours)

My Prediction: Colin Firth. Exactly the kind of performance the Academy loves. Plus, The King’s Speech’s greatest strength is its actors and even if it falls short of Best Picture, this is a safe bet.

My Vote: Colin Firth. Hey, he’s going to win for a reason. This is a strong batch of performances but Firth is deservedly at the top.

BEST ACTRESS

The nominees: Annette Bening (The Kids Are All Right), Nicole Kidman (Rabbit Hole), Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone), Natalie Portman (Black Swan), Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

My Prediction: Natalie Portman. The race is between Portman and Bening, but since actors make up the largest group of voting members, these awards can sometimes be a bit of a popularity contest. The newly engaged, newly pregnant Portman is as likable as they come. She also had to prepare extensively for the role, which always helps.

My Vote: Annette Bening. I loved Portman in Black Swan and she deserves her win, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate a little here and choose her main contender. My favorite performance this year is a tie between Bening and Julianne Moore as the married mothers at the center of The Kids Are All Right. For some reason, Moore hasn’t been recognized for her work the way Bening has, but in their portrayal of a troubled marriage, the interplay between the two is essential. So my vote is for Bening with a write-in for Moore. This is a fantasy anyways, so I can do what I want.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

The nominees: Christian Bale (The Fighter), John Hawkes (Winter’s Bone), Jeremy Renner (The Town), Mark Ruffalo (The Kids Are All Right), Geoffrey Rush (The King’s Speech)

My Prediction: Christian Bale. No one is giving him much competition here except maybe Rush, who has won before. I can’t wait to hear Bale’s acceptance speech too.

My Vote: Christian Bale. One could make the argument that a spotlight-stealing performance such as this one goes against what a “supporting role” should do in a film. Still, Bale’s drug-addled, self-absorbed, and ultimately well-meaning brother to Mark Wahlberg’s Micky is the heart of this film. The movie wouldn’t be as good as it is without him.

On a side note, no Armie Hammer for his dual role as the Winklevoss twins from The Social Network here? For shame.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

The nominees: Amy Adams (The Fighter), Helena Bonham Carter (The King’s Speech), Melissa Leo (The Fighter), Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit), Jacki Weaver (Animal Kingdom)

My Prediction: Melissa Leo. Leo is an actress that has gone underappreciated for a long time, and my feeling is that she will finally get recognition from her peers here. This isn’t a lock, however, and if Adams splits support for The Fighter’s actors, the young Steinfeld may swoop in. My bet is still on Leo, though.

My Vote: Hailee Steinfeld. For such a young actress to carry a film is impressive. She’s only in the “supporting” category because of inexplicable Academy logic. I was thoroughly impressed by her restraint and conviction in the part, and holding your own against Jeff Bridges is no easy task.

Another side gripe: Had Mila Kunis been nominated here for Black Swan, I’d have voted for her.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The nominees: 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter’s Bone

My Prediction: The Social Network. The year’s two favorites (Network and Speech) are divided in the screenplay categories, which should mean they will both get their honors here before duking it out for Best Picture.

My Vote: The Social Network. Two hours of discussing computer programming and copyright laws shouldn’t have been as absorbing as Aaron Sorkin made them. He took the story of a website’s creation and made it a fascinating (if also largely fabricated) character study and human drama.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

The nominees: Another Year, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech

My Prediction: The King’s Speech. See above reason.

My Vote: The Kids Are All Right. Director Lisa Cholodenko along with her co-writer Stuart Blumberg capture every nuance of their characters’ quirks and speech. The movie is alternately hilarious and heartbreaking and we have a great script to thank for that.

My foolhardy predictions for the rest of the nominees, including some wild guessing on the shorts:

Animated Film: Toy Story 3

Art Direction: The King’s Speech

Cinematography: The Social Network

Costume Design: The King’s Speech

Documentary Feature: Restrepo

Film Editing: Black Swan

Foreign Language Film: Biutiful

Makeup: The Wolfman

Music (Original Score): The Social Network

Music (Original Song): “If I Rise,” 127 Hours

Sound Editing: Inception

Sound Mixing: The Social Network

Visual Effects: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Documentary Short: Strangers No More

Animated Short: Day & Night

Live Action Short: God of Love

I’ll return in a month to see how wrong I was.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/26/11

REVIEW: No Strings Attached

No Strings Attached (2011): Dir. Ivan Reitman. Written by Elizabeth Merriwether. Starring Ashton Kutcher, Natalie Portman, Kevin Kline, Jake Johnson, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges and Lake Bell. Rated R (sexual content, language and some drug material). Running time: 110 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

I wonder, how did the script of No Strings Attached describe its leads? “Enter Adam, an attractive young man who looks and acts exactly like Ashton Kutcher.” Or maybe: “Emma is a beautiful young woman who, if we’re lucky, looks and acts exactly like Natalie Portman.” The movie seems to have been constructed around the knowledge that two likable stars would fill these roles, which allows the filmmakers to forgo the arduous process of creating interesting and believable characters. We come to the movie already prepared to like these people because the trailers and posters have informed us who plays them, a trick that works for No Strings Attached more than it should.

Adam (Kutcher) and Emma (Portman) are not quite friends at the beginning of the film. They have had a few awkward encounters in their youths, including a humorous failed seduction by Adam at summer camp and a chance reunion at a college party years later. From the start, Adam clearly likes her. And who wouldn’t? She shows up to a pajama-themed frat party wearing long johns and still manages to look good.

Emma decides to follow up this second encounter by inviting Adam to her father’s funeral the next morning. The funeral scene, the last of a brief prologue, opens the door for a decidedly darker sense of humor than the movie continues with afterward. Think for a moment though about what kind of girl would party the night before her father is buried and then invite a more-or-less stranger to the services. That girl probably wouldn’t look or act anything like Natalie Portman. But never mind that. The opening scenes lay down the groundwork for characterization that the rest of the film largely ignores. Never again do we see these morbid tendencies from Emma, nor does Adam ever resemble anything close to the goofy frat guy he is in the movie’s second scene.

In the present day, they meet once more and possibly feel a spark so they exchange numbers. Adam soon breaks up with his current girlfriend and has a bad night of drunken phones calls that leads him to Emma’s apartment the next morning. From here they decide to embark on a relationship their friends tell them is impossible: to have casual sex without ever allowing romance to enter the equation.

To pad this rather weak premise, No Strings Attached is filled with supporting performances, perhaps even crowded with them. Adam’s buddies (Jake Johnson and Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges) give him the requisite “guy advice” and Emma’s apartment-mates (The Office’s Mindy Kaling, Greta Gerwig and Guy Branum) take their turns ogling Adam and envying her new fling. The best of these actors is Jake Johnson, who has enough charm to make an otherwise forgettable role funny. Ludacris too gets some chuckles, though the strangeness of him even being in this movie might have a lot to do with that.

Then there is Adam’s father (played by Kevin Kline), a one-time TV celebrity who starts sleeping with Adam’s ex (Ophelia Lovibond). These scenes strive for comedy but consistently fail, though fault does not lie with Kline or Lovibond. Too often, these goofy scenes try to hang real emotions on their characters, resulting in an uneven tone.

Despite the overabundance of side characters, attention never strays from Adam and Emma for very long. Unfortunately, their characters are almost entirely defined by their relationship. Adam hopes for romance and so he is painted as the emotional and considerate Nice Guy. Emma prefers to keep her distance from such intimacy and is an Independent Woman. Their jobs are typical for a movie of this kind and serve little purpose other than to supply potential romantic rivals. Emma works at a hospital where an improbably rugged doctor-in-training (Ben Lawson) shows some interest in her, and Adam is a production assistant for a Glee-type show with aspirations of becoming a writer. Also on the set of Adam’s show is Lake Bell, whose foul-mouthed turn as a neurotic co-worker obsessed with Adam deserves more screen time than she gets.

The comedy in No Strings Attached is hit or miss and the movie is better at crafting cute moments than it is funny ones. The movie elicits a fair amount of smiles but no real laughs. This is really only a problem in Kline’s scenes as the father, which go for the laughs and fall short. For the most part, however, the movie is content to be a middle-of-the-road romantic comedy made up of recycled parts. That Ivan Reitman, who once upon a time made Ghostbusters, directed this movie is a little disconcerting, but as an entry in the romantic comedy genre, there has been much worse than No Strings Attached.

Strip away the side characters and meager plot, and you have the one element that every romantic comedy lives or dies on: the chemistry between its leads. The chemistry between Kutcher and Portman is hardly sizzling, but they were cast for a reason. More often than the movie deserves, the likeability of its actors keeps the production afloat. Their characters' relationship doesn’t have enough substance to get us really rooting for them, but there is a certain comfort in seeing two nice, attractive people get together on screen. For a movie with such modest ambitions as No Strings Attached, that seems to be enough.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/23/11

Awards, Lists & Prestige: A Look at the Year-End Awards Craze and the Top 10 of 2010

Now mid-January, we find ourselves in the thick of movie awards season. The critics have published their Best of the Year lists, and just about every other weekend you can catch a glimpse of the Hollywood elite sipping on drinks and wearing their designers’ finest on any number of award broadcasts. But what are we supposed to take away from this frenzy? What does winning Best Picture mean? Or topping a Top 10 list? The cynic in me is tempted to dismiss it all. “There’s no way to determine an objective best film in a given year,” he says. And he’d be right to say so.

On the other hand, the realist in me (a close cousin to the cynic) understands that, for better or worse, the end of the year hubbub that builds up to the Academy Awards is an unavoidable part of the movie industry, so there’s no sense in bemoaning its existence. Despite what one might think seeing the annual onslaught of big-budget blockbuster hopefuls each summer, studios aren’t solely interested in box office receipts. Those glittering statuettes – whatever shape they may be – offer a chance to accumulate that other type of wealth (the non-monetary kind): prestige. The fight for prestige is not limited to studios either. Who wouldn’t want those three wondrous words (“Academy Award Winner”) attached to their name in trailers for the rest of their career?

The problem is that the winners are not always deserving of their new titles. Often, the Oscars generate a lot of (ultimately fleeting) enthusiasm around undeserving films and so the list of Best Picture winners becomes riddled with forgotten movies that, in their year, were deemed the best of the best. The Academy Awards are also painfully predictable. Nominations have yet to be announced, but I can already confidently say that The Social Network will win Best Picture.

Hold on a moment, though. The cynic in me is taking control again. Sure, the Academy Awards are a fallible cultural game that cannot accurately predict which films will be remembered 10, 20, or 50 years later, but they’re hardly worthless. They help to highlight movies that the general public might not have paid attention to otherwise.

A few weeks back, for example, I saw The King’s Speech at my local theater. The movie had been getting a lot of critical attention and the Oscar prognosticators had begun to beat their drums, so I was excited to see it. I wasn’t the only one either. The movie played to a sold-out theater and ended up being a crowd-pleaser. Exiting the theater around me as the credits rolled were excited moviegoers chatting about their favorite parts. Oscar buzz led us into the theater, but the film’s humor and heart sent us home, wanting to recommend it to a friend. The film overcame the daunting expectations that are placed on an Award Winning Film and was able to sway the many subjective opinions in its audience.

Which leads me to critics’ lists. Like the Academy Awards, they do not offer a definitive statement of the year’s best films, but instead provide insight into a critic’s personal tastes. Seeing which critics chose which films as their favorites says something that the blinding glitz and glamour of the red carpet cannot. Of course, a critic’s list can be just as susceptible to end-of-the-year hype as an awards show. In my own experience, I often look back at my choices for the year’s best and scratch my head. In 2007, I wrote that Juno was the year’s best, with No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood and Zodiac all taking a backseat to that cutesy-quirky romantic comedy. Three years later, Juno is still a funny movie, but each of those other films has appreciated better, rewarding multiple viewings in a way that Juno’s one-liners cannot.

Predicting which films will be remembered years from now can be a tricky thing. So with that limitation in mind, I craft my Top 10 of 2010 list. There were no movies this year that I found truly great in the four-star sense of the word (last year I saw at least four: The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man and Up in the Air), but there were still some very fine movies that may yet become great in time.

The numbered order is subjective almost to the point of arbitrariness, but when organizing the list, I kept in mind the following: To what degree was the film a wholly satisfying experience? How have these films appreciated in the short time since I left the theater (or ejected the DVD as the case may be)? Organizing the list in this way led to some surprising results for me, but I think the list is an honest one. What follows are the ten films that most affected me in their various ways.

10) True Grit

Of course a Coen Bros. western would be heavier on talking than shooting. The prolific writer/directors seem to be able to take their style in just about any direction they please, and their adaptation of the novel that also inspired the 1969 classic is a witty and often violent trip out West. Add a grumbling, drunken Jeff Bridges in the John Wayne role and the promising young talent of Hailee Steinfeld and you have a very entertaining film.

9) The King’s Speech

Sometimes the best historical dramas are the ones with the narrowest focus. The King’s Speech centers on King George VI’s stammer in the burgeoning years of the Radio Age. This may not sound like much of a subject for a drama, but the story is a surprisingly touching and inspirational one. Colin Firth as the titular King and Geoffrey Rush as his speech therapist are thrill to watch play off each other too.

8) The Kids Are All Right

No other movie I saw this year has as keen an understanding of how people interact as The Kids Are All Right. Annette Bening and Julianne Moore star as lesbian mothers who struggle with their children’s desire to connect with their sperm donor father (Mark Ruffalo). This is wonderful comedy that occasionally flirts with melodrama but even then remains an honest a depiction of family dynamics. That the family is an unconventional one dampens none of its universality.

7) A Prophet

This fascinating French film follows a young man’s years in prison as he navigates the multicultural politics of organized crime on the inside. Though only a handful of scenes take place outside the prison walls, the film is as expansive and grand as a crime epic. Absorbing from beginning to end.

6) The Ghost Writer

A political thriller about a biographer (Ewan McGregor) who agrees to write the memoirs of former Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) after Lang’s former ghost writer mysteriously committed suicide. Director Roman Polanski hasn’t lost any of his knack for crafting great thrillers, and this one is one of the most rich and involving mysteries in recent years. It has a phenomenal ending too.

5) The Social Network

How much is fact and how much was made up? Does it matter? Director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin take the story of Facebook’s creation and turn it into the stuff of Greek drama. Jesse Eisenberg is wonderful as the borderline misanthropic Mark Zuckerberg and is surrounded by a strong supporting cast. Often dark, sometimes funny, and always engrossing.

4) Inception

Christopher Nolan is a marvelous craftsman and he outdoes himself here. He builds, then solves his own puzzle, playing by the rules he invents for himself. The result is one of the most dazzling and inventive action movies since The Matrix. Like that earlier film, Inception toys with metaphysical ideas just long enough to hold you over until the action scenes, all of which are exceptional.

3) 127 Hours

Only Danny Boyle could take the true story of Aron Ralston, who was trapped in a rock crevice for over five days, and turn it into one of the most entertaining movies of the year. Despite the seeming physical limitations of Ralston’s story, Boyle’s film is a kinetic and exhilarating ride. 127 Hours has all the tension of an action movie and its protagonist doesn’t even move for most of the film. Credit must also be given to James Franco for carrying the film in a career-best performance.

2) Black Swan

The best horror movie in years. Darren Aronofsky’s tour de force about a ballerina losing her mind is an eerie, paranoid thriller with top-shelf performances from Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey and Vincent Cassel. There are a number of twists and turns along the way, but the movie wisely does not trap itself into any one version of reality. The movie exists within Nina’s mind, so the question of what is or isn’t real is irrelevant. To her, everything is real, and I’m only all too happy to get caught up in her surreal nightmare.

1) Toy Story 3

Each of the previous Toy Story movies followed a basic formula: The toys leave the house, have an adventure, and eventually find their way home. In between, we’re treated to some exceptionally clever gags and top-notch animation. The third film delivers all of this plus a pitch-perfect, heart-breaking coda. Rarely does a sequel work as hard as Toy Story 3 to thematically unite its predecessors, but Pixar rises to the occasion and ends a wonderful series in a wholly satisfying way. Not even the unnecessary 3D could bring this movie down.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/17/11

REVIEW: The Fighter

The Fighter (2010): Dir. David O. Russell. Written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson. Story by Keith Dorrington, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson. Starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams and Melissa Leo. Rated R (language throughout, drug content, some violence and sexuality). Running time: 115 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

Boxing dramas often tell the story of one man’s path to redemption. In The Fighter, we get two. The film is based on the life story of half-brothers Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund, and follows Micky’s struggle earn a name for himself in the shadow of his older brother and trainer.

Thirteen years earlier, Dicky (played by Christian Bale) beat Sugar Ray Leonard and he hasn’t stopped talking about it since. He’s known as “The Pride of Lowell” (his hometown in Massachusetts) and watching him mingle and greet local faces on the street, it’s easy see how he became a town hero. Following him around is an HBO film crew that Dicky explains to his family is shooting a documentary about his comeback. That comeback seems unlikely, though. Whatever talent he had years earlier looks to have left him. His current life is in shambles and his frequent visits to a local crack house make him absent for much of Micky’s training.

Micky (Mark Wahlberg), meanwhile, shows great promise in the here and now but can’t seem to get the fights he needs. His mother and manager (Melissa Leo) is too hung up on Dicky’s former glory to recognize this, and so Micky gets pulverized by guys outside his weight class just so his family can get paid for the match. He’s ready to quit the sport entirely when he meets Charlene (Amy Adams), a bartender who encourages Micky keep fighting, but without his family bringing him down.

The movie has an odd structure that shifts focus back and forth between its two main characters, leaving the viewer a little unsure of who the protagonist is meant to be. Dicky’s exuberant personality dominates the early scenes and draws attention away from the more stoic Micky, a dynamic that no doubt mimics their real-life relationship. Once Dicky hits rock bottom though, the middle third of the film consists of Micky’s training and rise to success.

This being a boxing movie, the story is a fairly familiar one. The Fighter’s surprises, however, do not necessarily come from the outcomes of the fights but from the source of the film’s emotional payoff. In the final leg of the film, the brothers’ relationship comes front and center. Dicky’s search for redemption is inextricably tied to his brother’s efforts to succeed in the game, and this balance of storylines ends the film on a very strong note.

This is also a movie filled with strong performances. Christian Bale leads the pack with a career best as Dicky, whose charismatic energy is a far cry from the stone-faced heroes the actor is asked to play in action movies. Once again, Bale has lost weight to play the role but his performance goes beyond a physical transformation or imitation (a clip of the real-life Dicky in the closing credits though shows that Bale’s acting is spot on). Dicky is a tragic figure who doesn’t have much to hold onto. Even his one proud accomplishment is believed by some to have been a fluke (“Sugar Ray tripped,” says a few of the locals). He projects a charming persona but is consumed by inner shame and Bale is thrilling to watch as a man careening through this complex set of emotions.

Mark Wahlberg gives a effective and restrained performance, though next to Bale he might be mistaken for underacting. The long-suffering Micky isn’t as dynamic to watch as his brother, but Wahlberg is a strong leading actor and can more than carry his scenes without Bale. Melissa Leo shines in a supporting role as their mother, a manipulative woman whose love for her eldest son comes through even during her fervent denial of his drug addiction. Amy Adams gets the opportunity to play against type as the feisty and sexy love interest and she’s a joy to watch in the role. Also noteworthy is Mickey O’Keefe playing himself, the upstanding cop who trains Micky in Dicky’s absence. Despite having no prior acting experience, O’Keefe holds his own amongst A-listers and gives a memorable performance.

Mark Wahlberg worked very hard to get The Fighter made and though the project shifted hands numerous times between different writers and directors, the final product shows no mark of its long road to theaters. Director David O. Russell’s past features have included stylized fare such as Three Kings and I ♥ Huckabees, but his work here bears the restraint of one who treads more carefully when handling another’s story. His presence is still felt though and the movie is wonderfully shot, particularly in the ring. The matches are faithfully recreated and easy to follow (even to a boxing novice such as myself).

The Fighter at first seems more like a pair of character studies than a plot-centric story, but builds over the course of its two-hour running time, slowly drawing you in. By the end, one can’t help but get swept up in the stakes of these two brothers. The final match is a requisite scene in any boxing drama, but it works so well here because the characters and story have earned our emotional investment.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/15/11

REVIEW: True Grit

True Grit (2010): Written and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, based on the novel by Charles Portis. Starring: Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper. Rated PG-13 (some intense scenes of western violence including disturbing images). Running time: 110 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

For the Coen brothers’ version of True Grit, who better to fill the shoes of John Wayne than Jeff Bridges? Though this neo-western isn’t as much a remake of its 1969 predecessor as it is a second adaptation of the original novel, a comparison to the film that won John Wayne his only Oscar is certainly warranted. Fresh off his own Best Actor award for last year’s Crazy Heart, Jeff Bridges reunites with the Coens for the first (and only) time since The Big Lebowski. Bridges proves to be just as triumphant as Wayne playing the one-eyed, whiskey drinking U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn, and his performance is arguably even better because of its placement in a more confident and focused film.

Though Bridges receives top billing, the story belongs to Mattie Ross, played with restraint and poise by newcomer Hailee Steinfeld. While the original film was more of a John Wayne vehicle than anything else, the Coens stay closer to the source material by centering their film on Mattie, the 14-year-old girl who seeks vengeance on a drunken criminal named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) who has murdered her father. The determined young girl takes a train into town to see that her father’s body is returned her family’s home in the countryside. While in town, she has “some business” to take care of. That business includes hiring Rooster Cogburn to help her track down Tom Chaney and bring him back to town to be hanged for the murder of her father.

Though the sheriff recommends other men for the job, Mattie Ross is drawn to Cogburn. We first see him in a courtroom, fending off questions for a questionable shooting. The prosecutor tries to get him to admit that he shot an unarmed man, but Cogburn has no patience for such legal technicalities. He shot a man because the man was an outlaw, simple as that. Any discussion that belabors the point is time that could be better spent drinking. When Mattie approaches him after the hearing and offers him fifty dollars to catch Chaney, he dismisses her. He’ll believe her tall tales when he sees the money in front of him. And so she promptly wakes him up the following morning, cash in hand.

Throughout the film, Mattie Ross says that if no one will help her, she’ll shoot and kill Chaney herself. We believe she means it not because she’s a cold-blooded killer but because she speaks with unflinching sincerity. Her vocabulary exceeds that of everyone she comes across and she threatens to make use of her lawyer more often than Cogburn brandishes his pistol. The Coens place a lot of a trust in Steinfeld – who was only thirteen when the movie was filmed – and their faith in the young actress is rewarded. She gets a number of extended close-ups, a choice that might have betrayed a lack of experience in a lesser actress, but Steinfeld rises to the challenge. Her performance is every bit as resolute as her character.

In addition to Bridges, Steinfeld shares screen time with several seasoned veterans. Matt Damon is good as LaBeouf, a Texas Ranger who’s after Chaney for the murder of a Senator. He’s awfully proud of his badge and the film plays for laughs LaBeouf’s failed attempts to act slick. Josh Brolin gets a few scenes’ worth of snarling and looking mean, and the indispensable Barry Pepper appears as the gaunt, almost skeletal outlaw leader “Lucky” Ned Pepper (a role played in the original by Robert Duvall). As is the case in all Coen Bros. films, not a single actor is wasted. Even the briefest of roles deserves some attention, and the film is filled with colorful supporting performances.

When compared to the original, the Coens’ True Grit is paradoxically darker and also funnier than its predecessor. The original has its moments, but mostly suffers from tonal issues. The original True Grit was released in 1969, well after the Golden Age of westerns and despite telling a rather gritty (pardon the pun) story of revenge, the film’s Technicolor landscapes and jubilant score from Elmer Bernstein hark back to that earlier era. Visually, the Coen brothers' take on the story is considerably darker, and they also allow for a little more violence, some of which is even played for darkly humorous effects.

This is also an exceptionally talky western. Bridges garners laughs in some of Cogburn’s more bumbling, drunken moments, but the film’s humor is mostly rooted in its snappy dialogue. The Coen brothers are a remarkably assured team of writer/directors. They’ve carved out their own stylistic niche (Barton Fink, Fargo, and A Serious Man are a few that come to mind as more traditional Coen fare), but they are more than capable of handling a genre flick like this one without losing their distinctive voice.

True Grit is an enthralling execution in an age-old cinematic genre. The western has changed a bit since John Wayne’s days but the genre has proved itself to be an enduring one. In recent years, we’ve seen a handful of westerns make their way to the big screen and while I can’t see a flood of them arriving anytime soon, accomplished features like True Grit show that a one-eyed cowboy and a six-shooter still make for some fine entertainment.

Note: I found it interesting that this violent revenge story, which at one point shows a pair of fingers get chopped off a hand, received a PG-13 rating while The King’s Speech (also in theaters now) got an R rating for an innocent scene that features a brief string of f-bombs. There is nothing particularly offensive in either film, but the disparity reveals just how morally backward those supposed protectors of decency, the MPAA, are.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/07/11

REVIEW: The King's Speech

The King's Speech (2010): Dir. Tom Hooper. Written by: David Seidler. Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce. Rated R (some language). Running time: 111 minutes.

3 ½ stars (out of four)

Prince Albert of York (played by Colin Firth) has a problem. As the second son to King George V, he is called upon to make the occasional public speech, but a crippling stammer leaves him silent behind the microphone, struggling to get his words out. The recent invention of radio allows his public speaking failures to be broadcast to an entire nation. At one point in The King’s Speech, George V remarks how earlier kings had it easy. All they had to do was stand still and look good for their portrait. In 1925 (when the film begins), however, radio was a revolutionary modern invention that forced politicians and royalty alike into a new realm of public attention.

The King’s Speech captures a society that is still adjusting to its newfound modernity. Coming into the 20^th Century, the British monarchy had more symbolic power than it did political. Britain’s kings were expected to simply give voice to the nation’s people, leaving the actual politicking to the Prime Minister. Such expectations are understandably daunting for Prince Albert considering his speech impediment. The film dramatizes Albert’s ascension to King (when he becomes known as George VI) and focuses on his struggle to overcome his stammer.

King George V (Michael Gambon) has no patience for his son’s disability and though he knows Albert is the more capable of his two sons, he fails to understand what holds him back. The rightful heir is David (Guy Pearce), but the firstborn’s cavalier attitude and infamous womanizing make him a less than ideal candidate for the throne. This puts pressure on Albert to be ready should his brother step down from the responsibility.

A king with a stammer, however, is no king at all and so Albert’s wife (Helena Bonham Carter) takes him to a number of correctional doctors, all of who are unable to help. Then she discovers the Australian speech specialist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who takes a more Freudian approach to Albert’s condition by treating it as a mental impediment. Logue’s unconventional treatment is met at first with resistance, but a friendship and an understanding soon forms between the two men.
In some ways, the film is reminiscent of the excellent 2006 film The Queen, which also examined a brief period in the life of a British monarch. Both films touch on larger themes of leadership and British nationalism by focusing on a ruler’s struggle with their public persona.

As in The Queen (whose star Helen Mirren won a deserved Oscar), at the center of The King’s Speech is an excellent peformance. Two, actually. Colin Firth gives a superb performance as the soon-to-be King by humanizing him. His recreation of the stammer is entirely convincing, but his performance goes deeper than this. The stammer is a key to the character’s emotional life. Watch how he not only shuts down in public speeches, but in private conversations with his father and older brother too. We see how he is a good man at heart capable of great leadership if only he can overcome his anxieties.

Geoffrey Rush is wonderful as well and his playful take on Lionel gives the film much of its lighthearted tone. The scenes between Albert and Lionel are a joy to watch and director Tom Hooper wisely gives the two actors the time and space to stretch out and develop their characters’ relationship. In one scene, Lionel pushes Albert and asks him to vent his anger. The slew of profanities that fly out of Albert's mouth make for one of the film’s funniest and surprisingly touching moments.

Also good is Helena Bonham Carter, whose performance may get overshadowed by those of her co-stars. In the role of Albert’s supportive wife, she lends a tender, warm-hearted performance to the film and while her scenes with Firth are not as noteworthy as those between him and Rush, they give the film an emotional core.

Shot largely on location, The King’s Speech is also beautiful to look at. The spacious, luxurious halls of castles and cathedrals fill the screen and cinematographer Danny Cohen shoots the film’s regal locales with their awe-inspiring size and grandeur in mind. Hooper uses these settings to heighten the pressures put on Albert, who is more at home in smaller, cozier rooms. We can understand how the pressure put on him must feel when he’s positioned at the bottom of a frame that captures a vast and expansive ballroom.

The King’s Speech questions what it means to be a leader and brings up historical themes of British nationalism but never pushes these larger ideas too hard. This is an enjoyable, often humorous character-driven film that, like all good biographical films, transcends the facts and tells a human story, an exceedingly charming one at that.

- Steve Avigliano, 1/02/11