The Fighter

The Fighter is the story of "Irish" Micky Eklund, a boxer from Lowell, MA who overcame long odds and a difficult family to become Welterweight Champion of the world. Marky Mar . . . I mean Mark Wahlberg plays Micky, and when we pick up the story he is stuck fighting no name fighters in an effort to get noticed so he can make real strides in the boxing world. His trainer is his troubled brother Dicky, played by Christian Bale. Dicky is also a former boxer, whose career highlight was knocking down Sugar Ray Leonard in a 1979 fight, but who let his personal struggles with crack addiction ended his career. Micky's manager is his mother Alice, played by Melissa Leo, who is the matriarch from hell, and a barely competent boxing manager.

Micky meets Charlene, played by Amy Adams, a local bartender that encourages and challenges him to be a better boxer and rise above his family problems. Most of the movie centers around this family dynamic. Micky struggles with balancing trying to train seriously for his fights with his loyalty to his brother, who taught him all his in ring moves. He further struggles balancing his newfound love and devotion with Charlene with finding how to properly involve his unreliable family in his boxing life. We watch the depths of Dicky's addiction, from disappearing for hours at a time when he is supposed to be training Micky, to going to jail for a stretch for impersonating the police in a money-making scheme. We watch Alice expertly manipulate her children so that she can continue to benefit financially from Micky's boxing career. Truly a messed up family dynamic.

During the middle of all of this family drama are some nicely shot boxing sequences. Director David O. Russell (who made one of my 50 all time favorite movies, Three Kings, coincidentally starring Wahlberg) expertly handles the actual fight sequences to feel authentic and realistic, which is unlike a lot of other films of this genre which stylize these kinds of fight sequences (such as Million Dollar Baby, for example); the boxing matches felt like they were out of an ESPN 30 for 30 documentary. The boxing is grounded in realism. And Wahlberg looks like a true boxer, with his body giving the physical nuances you expect from a professional. Beyond the ring, Russell really embeds us into this world and the Lowell, MA area. We become part of the community that Micky is fighting for, which makes us root for him throughout, particularly his climactic fight for the title.

The acting is top notch. The true standout of the movie is Bale, who totally encapsulates the well meaning but drug addicted Dicky. I think that in lesser hands this role could have easily been overracted, wooden, and archetypal, but Bale has the creative chops to flesh the character into someone we want to care about despite his struggles. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actor, and he could win. I also enjoyed Leo as the mother of mindgames (pun intended). Another Oscar contender, she will make you thankful that she is not your mother. Wahlberg and Adams are also solid, as usual, but, they just fall into Bale and Leo's shadows. To use boxing as an analogy, Wahlberg and Adams are stuck up against the ropes while Bale and Leo dance around the ring - which would you find more interesting to watch?

The Fighter is not in the same category as other legendary boxing movies (Raging Bull, Rocky, Million Dollar Baby), but I think it settles nicely into that second tier, with films like Cinderella Man or The Hurricane. I think what sets this film apart from the others is how grounded in realism it is (it is after all based on a true story), the de-stylizing of the fight scenes, and the interesting family focus that it has. I think most fans of boxing and sports movies will enjoy it. Only time will tell if The Fighter gets a shot at the title with the heavyweights of the genre.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (HPDH1) is the 7th film in the HP series and the first part of the epic finale. It is based on the massively popular book series that was finished in 2007.

Prior to this film, my only experience with HP had been the 6 previous movies. For me, they were all about on equal footing. They all gave you fairly interesting characters, solid visuals, some funny moments, and an intriguing overarching story with Harry vs Voldemort, with each individual installment offering its own interesting plot. I didn't fall all over myself in love with them, but I enjoyed my time with them.

This summer thanks to the suggestion of a friend I decided to read the books. I enjoyed them all very much and not only did it remind me of all the important plot points I had forgotten over nine years, but it filled in lots of story elements left out of the movies.

As I've said in numerous previous posts, I don't like to compare films with their literary sources beyond whether or not the motion picture encapsulated the spirit of the written word. It should be commonly accepted amongst all society that the book will be better than the movie with almost no exception (I can only think of 2 - The Green Mile and The Lord of the Rings). So I won't do any comparisons here. What I will say is that for me, HDHP1 does capture a bit of the spirit of the book, even though I think that spirit is a bit hollow. I thought the first half of the book was a bit meandering and unfocused; this book took me the longest to read because I had a hard time really getting fully invested in the first half, and I think that is because that's what Harry was going through (in the book, Harry and Ron's big fight is around this entire concept). I think that if the book had been just a bit more focused, it would've made for a more focused movie. Alas, twas not to be.

HPDH1 does what it is supposed to do: it gets a bunch of the exposition about why Harry, Ron, and Hermoine are on their quest out of the way, it sets up what many characters are going to need to do for the final chapter, and it also puts Harry and Voldemort in a collision course for their inevitable showdown. While I thought the place where they decided to end the story, with Voldemort finally acquiring the Elder Wand, was a curious choice, as I thought the book presented lots of other more suitable stopping points, I think hindsight may show more insight into the filmmaker's thinking.

Anybody with no previous knowledge of HP will be hopelessly and utterly lost. The filmmakers have wisely decided that anyone interested in HPDH1 is already a fan and, at a minimum, seen the previous 6 movies, so they jump right in with the story and keep it moving. I appreciate that, as some studios try to re-establish certain characters or ideas in the hopes of orienting new audience members. This keeps the story moving forward. While at times it did feel like the filmmakers were trying to check off all the events in the plot like it was a "to-do list," the film, for the most part, kept rolling forward.

Honestly, there's not much more to say. If you love HP and you were excited about HPDH1, you should be satisfied, as the movie did everything it was supposed to; yes, some character points or plot events from the book were modified or combined, but nothing that was detrimental or mangled the storytelling. If you have no interest in HP, you probably aren't even reading this. Here's hoping HPDH2 is a magical finish.

Tron: Legacy

Tron: Legacy (TL) is the long awaited and anticipated follow up to the cult, sci-fi, nerd fave Tron, released in 1982. The original Tron was a visual and technical achievement for its time, which is one of the reasons it holds such a hallowed place in the hearts of geeks everywhere. The plot? Eh, not as forward thinking as its visuals, but that is no matter for fans. The iconic images of the cycle race, the pi-looking space ships, the evil orange vs heroic blue color palette have cycled through the minds of its fandom for almost 3 decades.

Unfortunately for Disney, the original Tron was a box office disaster. It was such a flop that Disney has barely released it on any home video format; in fact, when I logged on to Netflix to grab the original again in anticipation of TL, I couldn't find it as they didn't have it (which is highly unusual for them). Disney basically buried the original in its coveted vault and spoke little of it again, getting what I like to call the Song of the South treatment.

(Which probably leads you to the following question: Alan, what do you mean the Song of the South treatment? Well, here's a random aside/film history lesson for all you inquiring minds: Song of the South was a 1946 Disney movie that combined live action with animation. The movie, which if I remember correctly - it's been almost 7 years since I've seen it - was set in an older time (late 1800s?) and was about an African American man named Uncle Remus, who was kind of a caretaker of a young Caucasian boy whose parents were separating. He would cheer up the boy by telling him stories of Br'er Rabbit, who would consistently outwit the dumb Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear. If this sounds familiar it is cause this movie was the inspiration for the ride Splash Mountain at Walt Disney World; this movie is also where the song Zipadee Do Dah came from. What's that you say? What's the big deal? Here's the thing: since the movie is set in the South during what I believe is a older time, the Br'er Rabbit stories and many of the scenes involving Uncle Remus are really bad racial stereotypes of African Americans. The movie was heavily protested when it was released, with the NAACP calling for a total boycott from the African American community, was heavily protested the first time it was released on video, and was heavily protested when Disney considered re-releasing it in 2007. Heck, people heavily protested the opening of Splash Mountain because of its association with the movie. Because of this, Disney rarely speaks of or references this film ever because of the public animosity towards it. So if you ever hear me refer to something as getting the Song of the South treatment, it means that the studio basically acts like the movie never happened. Glad you asked)

Because Tron got the Song of the South treatment, I was surprised that Disney decided to make a sequel, but I knew that they could make a good movie. And when I saw the trailers, I was jazzed.

With good reason. The film is a visual wonder, offering tons of quality special effects that bring you right into the world of TL. Unlike its predecessor, there aren't that many games played in TL, but they do re-create the classics: the pong-like disc throw and the motorcycle race. In each of these games the advancements in technology make it possible to ramp up the action and suspense. The blue and orange glow from their suits is wonderful, and the look of all the spaceships and locales is stunning. I was very impressed with the overall look of the film.

The plot? Well, it is not rocket science, but it's not a quick explanation either. Rather than try to detail the entire thing, I'll hit the high notes: Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) disappears in 1989. 20 years later, Flynn's friend Alan gets a page from Kevin's old office. Alan tells Kevin's son Sam about it. Sam goes exploring and boom - he's in the Grid. He finds his dad with the help of Quorra. Dad explains that he created a program, Clu (which looks like a 35 year old Jeff Bridges), who has taken over the grid and is trying to get Kevin's master key disc and jump into the portal that Sam opened to take over the world. Kevin, Sam, and Quorra have to stop Clu and beat him to the portal. Believe me, that is the heavily edited version of the storyline.

As kind of ludicrous as the plot is, it does its job. The plot serves as a facilitator for the filmmakers to bring the audience into TL's world and let it feast on the visuals; for me, this was no different than what Avatar did, although that film's visuals were much better. If you can be ok with the film visuals taking center stage over the plot or characters, you'll be fine - otherwise you'll be bored.

There is one thing, visuals and special effects related, that I do have a bone to pick with. The filmmakers used cutting edge technology to make Clu look like a young Jeff Bridges. The problem is that they use it to try to get a "performance" out of him. In my estimation, no matter how much technology advances, no matter how close we get to capturing human faces, no matter how great computers are, they will never, ever be able to duplicate the subtlety, the nuances, the indescribable "it" that actual human performances give. Every time I looked at Clu I was simply reminded I was looking at something manufactured. While that's probably partly the point, it is a little bothersome. I'm sure that crafting "CGI performances" will be a growing trend in the movie business; I'm just not sure I'll ever believe it.

I also need to give some quick dap to the music. Daft Punk does an amazing job of creating music that has a definite 80s feel but is still somewhat rooted in modern techno. It was unsettling, intoxicating, and somewhat hypnotic, and I mean all that in a good way. It was like they were the snake charmer and we were the snakes, moving along to their harmony. It absolutely enhanced TL's presentation. For me, that is one of the hallmarks of great movie music - if I'm able to notice it, it is almost always great.

TL is a solid movie, but I think that it will be a polarizing film. I said to the friend I saw it with that TL is what Tron would've been had our technology existed in 1982. I don't think he liked it as much as I did, and he replied, "I'm not sure that would be a good thing." That is for you to decide. Game on.

Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader (CNVDT) is the 3rd movie installment of the popular book franchise, following Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (CNLWW) and Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (CNPC). In the last decade, ever since The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Twilight found success at the box office, Hollywood has rushed to adapt numerous book series for youngsters into a family movie-going experience, and the Narnia book series has been no exception, turning in 3 installments in the last 5 years.

I am a fan of the Narnia books, with CNLWW being mandatory reading in 5th grade. It was such a delightful experience that I chose to read the rest of the series on my own. Some I enjoyed immensely - CNLWW, The Silver Chair, and The Last Battle stand out; others, not so much - CNPC and CNVCT's book versions weren't necessarily my cup of tea. Sadly for me (or maybe fortunately, depending on how you look at it), my memory of the literary stories is not solid. I don't remember all the subtle details and plot points from the books, and I don't have the time (nor frankly the inclination) to re-read them just to watch the films. And I have seen the movie versions of CNLWW and CNPC only once, so any narrative threads weaved from those films to CNVDT were most likely lost on me.

Honestly, I went into CNVDT with fairly low expectations. One reason was my aforementioned lack of enthusiasm for the source book. Best as I can recall it, the book wasn't heavy on action or worried about the main "plot", but more focused on the epic voyage that Lucy, Peter, and Eustace take with Caspian on the Dawn Treader. This made me wonder how they could craft an interesting, engaging plot when the book didn't exactly ooze it. The other source of my trepidation was CNPC. While I enjoyed CNLWW, as I believe they were pretty faithful to the novel that I loved, CNPC departed greatly from its source. Besides being visually unimaginative, it was also long and boring, with a meandering plot that was unfocused. Wasn't going to Narnia supposed to be fun? Weren't you supposed to be transported to a wonderful magical place? Not in the Narnia of CNPC. In a conversation I had with a friend about the film series, he rightly pointed out that in CNPC Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy had to re-learn all of the lessons from CNLWW because they either couldn't remember them or the White Witch magically wiped their memories. I'll let you decide which happened.

And I wasn't the only disenchanted fan - CNPC bombed out at the box office. While some of its demise was due to moving its release to the overly cluttered summer season, it was also the distinct drop in quality that kept fans away (with good reason). And I think that was the main feeling I had throughout CNVDT - the filmmakers realized that they needed to win fans back to the movie series, so they focused the film on the essential plot elements without much deviation for some of the whimsy and charm that make up the book.

And what is the plot you ask? In this installment, Lucy, Edmund, and their irritating cousin Eustace magically get taken back to Narnia, where they immediately hookup with (now King) Caspian on the Dawn Treader. He's on his way to find the missing 7 Lords of Narnia so that they can head to an island of Aslan's where they will all present their magical swords so they can undo the evil on another island, or something to that effect, as they never stop long enough to fully explain the importance behind ending this evil or the island or anything. But it gives us a reason to be there and that's what's important I guess. And at just under two hours, this is a greatly focused, somewhat distilled version of the CNVDT book plot, which again, is to be expected as the movie series is trying to win back fans.

You say you want interesting character development? Sorry homeslice, you won't find that in CNVDT. The only characters that they "develop" is Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace - I use quotes because their development is so basic and quick that it's hardly development at all. Lucy is jealous of her older sister Susan's beauty, Edmund believes himself a leader and is still haunted by the White Witch, and Eustace just doesn't know how to be anything but a douche. Each go through their "journey" to realize that they can become better people at the end, which, no surprise, they do.

There were lots of deviations from the book (too many to list them all), but only one really bothered me: the return (again) of the White Witch. Why is she still here? Why do they keep bringing her back? I know that Edmund as a character needs to grow, but why do they have to keep using the White Witch? Do they not have any better ideas? Does Tilda Swinton need the money? I just don't get it. None of the other changes were so egregious that it significantly bothered me, (they mostly combined events or used shortcuts to keep the movie moving), but it still irks me that CNVDT's filmmakers have to do it in the first place. I know that screen time is precious and you can't literally adapt the novel into a movie as that's impractical, but you can make the movie while keeping the spirit of the book. That's what the film adaptations of the franchises mentioned in the first paragraph do so effectively, and it's why they're so popular. Any modifications, deviations, or new creative choices are done so with the spirit of the source material in mind. They actually attempt to honor the source material. It seems like the filmmakers of CNVDT were so desperate to get back a viable paying fanbase that they changed things for simplicity and audience accessibility rather than the spirit of the Narnia novels.

Which brings me back to my first and overarching point with CNVDT. Everything that is done, everything that you see, and everything that you experience is designed to win you back. It essentially says "we know we screwed up with CNPC, but look, we can turn this around and make a solid film franchise of this series - just stick with us and keep coming to the theatre." I think at times Hollywood forgets that the reason we loved the books in the first place is because authors like C.S. Lewis knew how to craft a story with interesting characters and engaging plots. Too bad they don't.

I enjoyed CNVDT better than CNPC as it was at least easier to sit through, but it's still not nearly as good as CNLWW was. We'll see if the filmmakers efforts to turn the film franchise around literally and figuratively pay off - if they don't, we may not see any more Narnia films, which would be a shame, because if they could just capture the spirit of the books, they wouldn't struggle to make money; fans like me would be lining up to see them. Which isn't to say I won't see Chronicles of Narnia: The Silver Chair if they ever make it, but I might need Aslan to roar at the filmmakers before they do.

Unstoppable

Denzel Washington is the acting equivalent of Tim Duncan: he is probably the most underrated star at what he does even though everyone acknowledges how great he is, even from an "all time" historical perspective; he is paradoxical in that way. What I mean by that is that he is always great. No matter what the movie is about, no matter what the character he plays, he so rarely has a bad outing anymore, you almost forget that he is one of the greatest actors of all time. Same thing with Tim Duncan. No matter what's going on with his team or what he is doing on the court, people forget he is one of the greatest players in NBA history (btw, Denzel would love that corollary as he is an avid NBA fan).

Unstoppable is no exception. Denzel turns in another great performance as Frank, the engineer on a railroad train who, along with Chris Pine's Will, the train's conductor, decide to catch up with and stop an unmanned train operating under its own power, guided by the railroad company supervisor Connie, played by Rosario Dawson. Denzel is effortless as Frank. We immediately embrace him as this character - an older, wiser, experienced man who has spent his life doing what he does, staying where he is at, and then is expected to teach Will the ropes even though he doesn't really like the rookie and questions his advancement on the rails. Denzel could've very easily let this character be a broad, by-the-numbers template of a character, but with a bit of subtlety, charm, and grace (and just a dash of that killer Denzel smile), he elevates the character, and by extension, the movie. That's the genius of guys like Denzel and Tim - they are able to make even the most mundane, basic jobs great, even when those jobs are actually more complex than the surface would indicate.

Chris Pine and Rosario Dawson also do a good job, although Chris's performance was the least noteworthy. I actually thought the 2nd best performance of the movie belonged to Kevin Dunn, who played the infuriating railroad executive. Just like in Transformers, he has a knack of making whatever screen time he is given memorable, which is a great gift of character actors like him (I'll give that same praise to Ethan Suplee, who is in this movie as the baffoon railroad employee that lets the train get away, but not for this movie. Check out his work in the sublime TV show My Name is Earl).

The one thing about Unstoppable I will give it credit for is that it is a fairly unique idea for a movie in that there are not a whole lot of action films set on railroads, particularly in the 21st century. Despite the unusual setting, the film does a good job of ratcheting up the tension and building to some pretty suspenseful moments, although the end of the film - how the train finally stops - is somewhat of a letdown. But that is a minor quibble.

Tony Scott has shown himself to be a good filmmaker and has a good rapport with Denzel - this is their 5th movie together. I enjoyed this film, and once they stop making movies together, Unstoppable will probably be among my favorite of their collaborations, with Man on Fire. Their synergy seems to be, well . . .

Nope, I'm not gonna say it. You know what I mean.