Favorite Sports Movies

With March Madness rapidly approaching, I suppose now is as good a time as any to dive into some of my favorite sports movies. I figure the best times to do this would be either now or just prior to the launch of next year's professional football season, though the latter seems enshrouded in doubt.

I've narrowed the list to movies I saw during their theatrical run. There are a few seemingly obvious selections that sports movie enthusiasts will be shocked to see missing from the list below. Titles such as "Brian's Song," "The Pride of the Yankees" and "Breaking Away" among others. I've viewed these movies years after their release on video, and have admired them greatly, but I wanted to focus here on movies that resonated with me at the time of their initial theatrical viewing.

As with any list, there are just too many from which to choose. It's remarkable how many solid entries did not make my list, including "Million Dollar Baby," "The Natural," "Eight Men Out," "The Longest Yard," "The Bad News Bears," "Miracle," "Caddyshack," "Slap Shot," "We Are Marshall," "Invincible," "Major League," "Remember the Titans," "Coach Carter," "Glory Road"...

...and I could on and on.  But here are the sports movies that most resonated with me...

# 10 - "Rudy"
I'm often surprised at how polarizing this movie is.  People either love it or hate it.  I'm of the former, as the criticisms from the haters make little sense to me.  The most prevalent complaint I hear is that Rudy isn't the most likable character, and rubs people the wrong way.  True, but to the movie's credit, it acknowledges this very fact.  I also have an acquaintance who complains that Rudy's dream isn't practical.  (Oh.  Yeah.  Right.  Because the main prerequisite for all dreams is that they be practical.  Give me a break.)  I actually pity the haters here.

# 9 - "Friday Night Lights"
The spinoff television series has received such widespread critical acclaim that it's easy to forget Peter Berg's "Friday Night Lights" was first a movie starring Billy Bob Thornton.  If sports movies are mostly metaphors for life's other tribulations, then the economically depressed town of Odessa (Dillon in the tv series) is where those metaphors are mere luxuries.  Football is everything.  Winning is a means of survival in itself. 

# 8 - "A League of Their Own"
The sad thing about a pioneering spirit is that those individuals never realize the role they played in history until history itself has a chance to consider it.  Penny Marshall's film is sharp, funny and as rousing as any sports flick.  But what distinguishes it are the story's bookends.  That's where the league's participants realize what it meant.  That it ushered in a new perspective on women in society.  By God, they were pioneers after all.

# 7 - "Chariots of Fire"
There's so much more to this film than Evangelos Papathanassiou's ethereal musical score.  Set during the 1924 Olympics, devout Christian Eric Liddell runs for the glory of God.  Haughty sprinter Harold Abrahams strives to prove his worth to an anti-Semitic society.  This is an engrossing exploration into the motives that drive us to succeed.

# 6 - "Bull Durham"
"You don't respect yourself.  That's your problem.  You don't respect the game.  That's my problem." 
-- Crash Davis (Kevin Costner)

At a time when professional athletes seem more empowered by money and fame than a desire for the game, writer/director Ron Shelton has masterfully managed to operate below the pro-sports radar, finding both humor and humanity in the love shown by athletes who seldom thrive in the highest echelons of professional sports, yet whose desires prevent the proverbial white flag from being waved.  

# 5 - "Field of Dreams"
Phil Alden Robinson's film is set in present day Iowa, but its heart echoes back to a time of sports purity... before the Black Sox Scandal changed the way baseball was viewed.  In its peaceful country setting, where the portal to emotional reconnection lies in, of all places, a corn field... Ray Kinsella is gently led into a heartfelt reunion with both a lost family member and his own kind but wounded heart. 

# 4 - "Hoop Dreams"
This searing documentary runs a full three hours yet never comes off as even the least bit self-indulgent.  Perhaps that's because the life stories of Arthur Agee and William Gates capture our interest so completely and effortlessly.  I especially admired the movie's depiction of how coaches, family members, and friends encroach on the lives of inner-city sports phenoms.  This is a mesmerizing film.

# 3 - "Rocky"
I saw both "Rocky" and my number two selection (both boxing movies) when I was still pretty young, but even then they had an indelible impact on my psyche.  Perhaps that's inevitable with boxing movies.  There's just something about the intensity and fortitude that translates more potently to the screen.  The bar was set so high by these two movies that other boxing flicks are burdened by monolithic expectations, perhaps unfairly.  Very little need be said about "Rocky" other than I'm forever amazed that Stallone reportedly wrote the script in the span of a mere weekend locked in his apartment.  

# 2 - "Raging Bull"
Another boxing movie takes my number two spot, but Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" is a different kind of film.  "Rocky" was inspiring.  "Raging Bull" is raw, sad, and brutal.  Robert DeNiro put on sixty pounds to play Jake LaMotta, the infamous boxer known as much for his abusive lifestyle as his world middleweight boxing champion reign from 1949 to 1951.  This, along with "Taxi Driver" are arguably Scorsese's finest cinematic efforts.

# 1 - "Hoosiers"
David and Goliath stories are forever the backbone of successful sports cinema, but what makes "Hoosiers" my single favorite sports movie is that it opts to remain at ground level.  That's crucial, I think, to its success.  Compare it, for example, to something like "The Natural"... a movie I thought was decent but not quite brilliant.  Both involved redemption of varying degrees.  In "Hoosiers" it was the redemption for two people... one, a coach (Gene Hackman) with a checkered past and two, the town drunk (Dennis Hopper, who nabbed a Supporting Actor Oscar) who is given an unusual second chance.  In "The Natural," it was a gifted baseball prospect whose life took a tragic detour and his pro baseball aspirations were put on hold for decades.  Both solid jumping-off points...

The difference was one movie reveled in the simplicity of small town competitive spirit while the other deified the protagonist to stupefying degrees.  The climax in "The Natural" has Roy Hobbs belting a homer that smashes the stadium's lighting, sending a cascade of sparks down from the heavens onto our beloved hero as he rounds the bases.

In "Hoosiers", there a quick shot just prior to the State Finals in Indianapolis.  The shot is from outside the general store in the tiny town of Hickory, Indiana.  The store is closed.  A quiet night.  The streets are empty.  A sign at the front of the store reads: "CLOSED FOR THE BIG GAME."  Guess which moment I found more moving.

At one point in "Hoosiers," a well-meaning teacher (Barbara Hershey) apprehensive about the new coach's motives, confronts him about one of her students she suspects he wants to recruit.  "A basketball player around here is treated like a God.  How can you ever find out what he can really do.  I've seen them, the real sad ones.  They sit around all day, talking about the good old days when they were sixteen years old.  I don't want this to be the highlight of his career.  Gods come pretty cheap now, I mean, you get to be one by putting a leather ball into an iron hoop.  And I hate to tell you this, Mr. Dale, but it's only a game."

It's a fair point.  The coach doesn't really have an answer.  The film's greatest strength, I believe, is that it doesn't try to prove her wrong.  Sports is not a magic cure.  All efforts at redemption aren't successful.  (The Dennis Hopper character reverts back to the bottle.  And the coach is never able to explain his past actions.)   At the movie's conclusion, however, is the realization that the magic doesn't rest in the fact that they won, but that the entire town came together to be a part of it.

The reason sports movies are often able to transcend themselves into widespread appeal is that a competitive spirit isn't limited to just sports.  The magic rests in the desire to succeed and the willingness to compete for what stirs the human soul.

I love sports movies.

"Drive Angry"

Runtime:1 hr. 44 min.

Rated R for strong brutal violence throughout, grisly images, some graphic sexual content, nudity and pervasive language

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Amber Heard, William Fichtner

Director: Patrick Lussier

“Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

--Gustave Dore in John  Milton’s “Paradise Lost”

No one movie is for everyone.  This seems like basic knowledge, but you wouldn’t know it from many of Hollywood’s mainstream offerings.  One of the things I admire is a film that doesn’t bother to placate.  That doesn’t try to be all things to all people.  A movie that knows what it is, who would enjoy it, who wouldn’t, and why the hell should it care?  “Drive Angry” is a movie like that.

Try this scene on for size…

The story’s protagonist (Nicolas Cage) is having sex with a completely nude cocktail waitress, though he has elected to remain mostly clothed.  “Why don’t you fuck naked?” she asks during the act.  “Because I never disrobe before a gunfight,” is his reply.  And right on cue, the motel room door bursts open, a gang of thugs fly through, weapons drawn.  In a split second, the hero has his own pistol in hand.  He fires off a slew of rounds, wheels both himself and the woman in a circular motion to get better shots at any brute that gets too close.  He does this while remaining inside her.  In the midst of the fight, the hero is jolted from behind with a taser.  This, of course, brings the woman to orgasm.  What we have here is disposable filmmaking that rises to a level of… I don’t know… not really art, but something.

Cage plays John Milton.  A possible connection to “Paradise Lost”?  (What do you think?)  He’s on a mission.  His daughter has been killed by a satanic cult leader named Jonah King (Billy Burke), and his baby granddaughter has been kidnapped by the twisted devil-worshipper for the purposes of human sacrifice.  He enlists the help of a no-nonsense free-spirit named Piper (Amber Heard) recently fired from her latest job.  She reluctantly agrees, despite knowing little about this drifter who seems indestructible.  At the same time, Milton is being pursued by The Accountant (William Fichtner), a tenacious traveler who always looks out of place but never feels out of place.  I don’t want to give anything away, though by now you’ve no doubt deduced who Milton is, who The Accountant is, where the two come from, and where Milton is headed upon completion of his mission.

I’m not brimming with pride here, but I’ll admit I found the movie somewhat enjoyable, if for no other reason than it zipped down the narrative highway at a rapid enough pace so that my intellect didn’t have a chance to leap on board.  The film is what it is, cinematic warts and all.  It makes no apologies, nor does it ask an audience to like it. 

It’s important to note, however, that editor-turned-director Patrick Lussier (“My Bloody Valentine”) is no Tarantino.  He’s no Robert Rodriguez.  Hell, he’s not even the filmmaking side of Rob Zombie.  There is no wit-filled dialogue here, nor is there a distinct visual style that accentuates the bizarre premise.  Even the satanic cult angle seems lifted from any number of horror-movie remakes.  What it does have is an unbridled joy in its depravity.  When a movie with this much violence and this many mutilations is shot specifically in 3D, it couldn’t care less if you’re offended.

There are those who believe Nicolas Cage is destroying his career with some of his role choices, but he knows what he’s doing.  I don’t like all of his efforts either (i.e. the dreadful “Season of the Witch”) but he understands what’s asked of him, and what he’s comfortable playing.  He’s an ideal choice for Milton, portraying him with complete transparency.  No self-awareness. 

William Fichtner employs a similar approach with The Accountant.  If there’s an understated self-mockery to his performance, it’s more bred from his character than an actor’s realization of the plot’s inherent lunacy.  At first, Billy Burke seems an unusual choice for a cult leader, but he plays Jonah King just as he should… someone not quite sinister and darkly influential despite all efforts to canonize himself as such.  David Morse adds a touch of humanity to the mix as a kind soul who offers to take care of the very things Milton himself cannot.  And Amber Heard seems to have been cast solely by the studio’s PR department.  She looks fine in the promotional posters, and actually holds her own opposite Cage.

Some films speak to me.  Others engage a side of me that I’m not fully cognizant of until the moment those sides are unearthed.  Look, it’s not art, people.  It’s textbook guilty pleasure stuff.  When you’re watching a movie where the protagonist declines the offering of a beer until he can drink that beer from the skull of his archenemy, there’s a perverse pleasure in knowing that, at some point in the movie, he will quite literally do so.

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Hall Pass"

Runtime:1 hr. 38 min.

Rated R for crude and sexual humor throughout, language, some graphic nudity and drug use

Cast: Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Jenna Fischer, Christina Applegate, Nicky Whelan

Directors: Peter and Bobby Farrelly

One of the most effective traits of the Farrelly brothers' style of humor is their belief that comedies don't always need a "straight man."  Everybody's a nut. 

That economic approach to laugh-gathering has served the duo well, affording them the ability to pack their movies with as many jokes as their plots can hold.  "Hall Pass" clings mightily to this philosophy.  The film has its share of typical Farrelly-style laughs.  What it lacks, however, is a meaty enough plot to carry itself across the finish line. 

In a comic arena devoid of true "straight men", the closest thing to one is Rick (Owen Wilson).  He has a good job, a nice home, two great kids, a loving wife named Maggie (Jenna Fischer) whose patience with her increasingly neglectful husband is wearing thin.  ("You almost ready to head out?" he asks.  "It'll be a couple hours,” is her reply.  “Less if you help with the kids."  "Two hours is fine" he jokes.)  Adding to her stress is Rick's insatiable need to gawk at any remotely attractive woman who saunters into his libidinous crosshairs.  ("Going driving with you is like riding with a horny bobblehead!")

Rick's best friend is Fred (Jason Sudeikis), who is married to Grace (Christina Applegate).  Fred shares in Rick's visual "appreciation" or sorts toward the opposite sex, though is far less subtle.  (When unable to get any action, he retires to the family mini-van for an all-too-necessary masturbation session to Styx's "The Best of Times".)  With both wives fed up with their spouses' antics, they eventually take the advice of a self-help guru (Joy Behar) who advises them to offer the boys a "hall pass".  A week off from marriage, where they're free to engage in whatever affairs a female would have the unbridled kindness to offer them. 

We follow the guys on their seven day odyssey, complete with that "Law & Order" sound effect as we enter each new day.  Their journey toward sexual freedom begins on rough terrain, as the boys and their "entourage" of middle-aged-out-of-the-singles-game-too-long best friends debate the best places to meet hot chicks... Applebee's, Olive Garden, or Chili's. 

With no luck there, Rick and Fred hit the club scene, employing pickup lines Fred most likely spent way too much time working on.  ("You must be from Ireland, 'cause when I look at you, my penis is Dublin.")  With their would-be fortunes not changing, the guys enlist the help of an aging-but-engagingly-depraved hound (Richard Jenkins) who points out such nightclub social machinations as a woman who surrounds herself with more "plain" friends to make herself attractive.  Of course, it's only a matter of time before the husbands realize what treasures they have at home.

And that's sort of the drawback here.  It's a nice message, but way too obvious from the get go.  As a result, my interest waned pretty early on.  I did laugh a few times.  The Farrelly's have delivered what they've been specializing in for years now... toilet humor, nudity, crass yet funny dialogue.  I wasn't proud of everything that rattled the funny bone, but here's a litmus test for you... if you gauge your dignity by what you choose to NOT laugh at, then you officially have no sense of humor. 

Owen Wilson and Jason Sudeikis skillfully straddle the line between being crass and likable.  They’re well cast here, playing a couple clueless goofballs trying way too hard to achieve a level of social comfort that can only be acquired through not trying at all.  The humor is mostly there, but the story from Pete Jones (he of the Project Greenlight season one - "Stolen Summer" fame) doesn't quite have enough to hold our interest.  One of my main criticisms of action pics is that their plots are too often little more than clotheslines upon which action sequences are hung.  In a way, "Hall Pass" suffers from the same thing, except it's humor on the line. 

It's a close call, which is a tribute to the comic offerings of Peter and Bobby Farrelly.  The jokes are in place, but are leaned on too heavily by a paper-thin premise that can barely sustain even the most meager running time.  I admired their comic tenacity but by the final act, the Farrelly's have exhausted their tank, and are running on fumes. 

* * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars

The Oscars - Pointless Predictions, and Who I Would Vote For

It's that time again. 

Time for me to predict what I think might have a shot at taking home the biggest prizes Hollywood has on offer this year.  (Believe me, I possess no inside knowledge, so I'd advise against using what follows as a blueprint for your own Oscar pools, if you are entering one.)

Here we go:

Performance by an actress in a supporting role
Amy Adams - "The Fighter"
Helena Bonham Carter - "The King's Speech"
Melissa Leo - "The Fighter"
Hailee Steinfeld - "True Grit"
Jacki Weaver - "Animal Kingdom"

Boy, at one time I really thought Melissa Leo was a lock here.  But as the event grows near, I'm more of the belief that Hailee Steinfeld is going to end up taking the prize.  Her laid back, engaging personality really works in her favor, especially since Leo recently rubbed several voters the wrong way by purchasing a glossy ad in the trades campaigning for the award.  That, coupled with competition from the tremendous work of Amy Adams in the same movie, and I smell an upset in this category.  My vote would still go to Leo based solely on her performance, yet...

Who I predict WILL win:  Hailee Steinfeld - "True Grit"
Who I would VOTE FOR:  Melissa Leo - "The Fighter"

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

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"

Christian Bale has always been the frontrunner, still is the frontrunner, and will most likely end up taking the award.  The biggest potential for an upset would be Geoffrey Rush, though I think that with Colin Firth primed to get the leading actor nod, the Academy will give this one to Bale.  And of course, his performance was pretty tremendous.  (Yeah, that's always a plus!)  Jeremy Renner's role in "The Town" was a memorable one, though the movie itself faded from the public eye.  Mark Ruffalo will continue to be honored for his body of work.  John Hawkes is finally getting a little overdue recognition in Hollywood, but the nomination is his reward. 

Who I predict WILL win:  Christian Bale - "The Fighter"
Who I would VOTE FOR:   Christian Bale - "The Fighter"

Performance by an actress in a leading role

Annette Bening - "The Kids are All Right"
Nicole Kidman - "Rabbit Hole"
Jennifer Lawrence - "Winter's Bone"
Natalie Portman - "Black Swan"
Michelle Williams - "Blue Valentine"

Natalie Portman is the biggest lock of the night.  And it's hard to argue with that.  The nightmarish atmosphere of "Black Swan" was filtered through the unsettled fabric of her performance.  My vote?  That's a hard one, as this is actually--despite the seemingly inevitable outcome--the most competitive category in terms of the individual talent on display.  Bening, Kidman, and Williams give perhaps the finest performances of their individual careers.  This is definitely Portman's best work.  And Jennifer Lawrence's fierce persona carries the entire weight of "Winter's Bone."  Since Kidman has already won, Portman will win this year, and Williams will certainly win one day... my vote would probably go to Annette Bening.  She's the most overdue.

Who I predict WILL win:  Natalie Portman - "Black Swan"
Who I would VOTE FOR:   Annette Bening - "The Kids are All Right"

Performance by an actor in a leading role

Javier Bardem - "Biutiful"
Jeff Bridges - "True Grit"
Jesse Eisenberg - "The Social Network"
Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"
James Franco - "127 Hours"

The second biggest lock of the night.  Colin Firth should take this one.  Javier Bardem and Jeff Bridges turned in mesmerizing performances in two very different movies.  Both have recently won, however.  Jesse Eisenberg's depiction of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was crucial to that movie's success, as the entire substance of the story revolved around his personality traits and fractured relationships, yet I don't see him pulling the upset.  If there IS a possible upset here, it could be James Franco.  My personal vote would come down to a toss-up between the two.  Firth is too well-respected, though, to go two years in a row with a nomination but no award.  My vote would tilt in his favor as well, for a performance that shows a historical world leader in the most human, complex, engaging light.

Who I predict WILL win:  Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"
Who I would VOTE FOR:  Colin Firth - "The King's Speech"

Original screenplay

"Another Year" - Mike Leigh
"The Fighter" - Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson
"Inception" - Christopher Nolan
"The Kids are All Right" - Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg
"The King's Speech" - David Seidler

My vote?  Easy.  "Inception" all the way.  Hands down.  The screenplay for that movie was so complex, layered, intricate in detail yet never seemed (to me, anyway) to sacrifice the more human side of the story.  Nolan takes us into the world of the dream while never losing sight of the main character's emotional need to dive into such worlds in the first place.  But will it win?  It seems to take a back seat to both "The Kids are All Right" and the likely winner, "The King's Speech."  There is probably too much momentum to knock either of those entries from the pole position.  Yet...

What I predict WILL win:  "Inception"  (Whaaaaaat?) **
What I would VOTE FOR:  "Inception"

(**Yes, this is going to be my curve ball pick of the night, although conventional wisdom would say I'm full of cinematic shit.  But hey, if the decent-but-not-brilliant screenplay for "The Usual Suspects" can win in this category, is it really so crazy to think that just maybe...)


Adapted screenplay

"127 Hours" - Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy
"The Social Network" - Aaron Sorkin
"Toy Story 3" - John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich
"True Grit" - Joen Coen and Ethan Coen
"Winter's Bone" - Debra Granik and Anne Rossellini

I loved "The Social Network."  Thing is, if you were to ask me to break down specifically why I find it so fascinating, the task is a bit head-scratching.  I'm not saying I'm wrong to have loved it... merely in awe of how Aaron Sorkin has taken the book by Ben Mezrich and extrapolated a mesmerizing character study of college kids that transform a night of inventive online antics into a billion dollar business.  The only thing more strange than Facebook's ubiquitous presence in our daily lives is how its founder(s) arrived at their destination without fully realizing they were on the road in the first place.  All the entries are solid here, but this one should go to "Network."

What I predict WILL win:  "The Social Network"
What I would VOTE FOR:  "The Social Network"

Achievement in directing
"Black Swan" - Darren Aronofsky
"The Fighter" - David O. Russell
"The King's Speech" - Tom Hooper
"The Social Network" - David Fincher
"True Grit" - Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

So this seems to be a two-man race between "The King's Speech" director Tom Hooper and "The Social Network"'s David Fincher.  Now, the Directors Guild of America recently awarded Hooper the top prize, and of course the winner of the DGA best director practically always wins the Oscar. 

I've read in various papers and blogs, however, that many believe this could be the year of a break in that tradition.  Fincher is predicted by many to take top honors.  But you know what?  I just don't see it happening.  True, Hooper's body of work isn't nearly as vast as the others in this category, but I don't expect "The Social Network" to have quite as much success as it did at the Golden Globes.  Tom Hooper may seem not quite "ready" to receive the honor, but I'd remind you this is the same Academy that took literally decades before honoring Martin Scorsese with a win, and never rewarded Robert Altman with a best director statuette. 

My vote?  Well, it would have been--you guessed it--Christopher Nolan, except he didn't receive a nomination.  So my second choice?  This may seem like a little bit of a surprise, but I'd actually cast it for Darren Aronofsky for "Black Swan."  All the directing efforts were stellar.  But when I consider the intended effect on the viewer each film had, I have to say that the claustrophobic typhoon of paranoia unleashed by Aronofsky in "Swan" stayed with me the longest.  I loved all the entries here, but it was "Swan" that had the most visceral effect on my psyche.  Yes, the vote would come with an asterisk, as Nolan would have been my top choice... but Darren Aronofsky's work has really grown on me.  I'd cast my vote in his direction.

Who I predict WILL win:  Tom Hooper - "The King's Speech"
Who I would VOTE FOR:  Darren Aronofsky - "Black Swan"

Best motion picture of the year

"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"

While overall I think the awards will probably be spread out this year--which always makes for a more interesting Oscar telecast--it looks like "The King's Speech" has, at the very least, maintained its momentum going into the final stretch.  "The Social Network" has lost a little momentum since the Golden Globes. 

The box office successes of "Black Swan" and "True Grit" could make them interesting dark horses in the race.  "The Fighter", "127 Hours" and "The Kids are All Right" are VERY dark horses, but I suppose stranger things have happened. 

"Toy Story 3" will get its recognition in the best animated category.  "Inception" won't get as much recognition as it should.  And despite the fact that it was a terrific movie, I can't name five people who have actually seen "Winter's Bone."

What I predict WILL win:  "The King's Speech"
What I would VOTE FOR:  "Inception"


The Oscar Telecast will air on ABC on Sunday, February 27th at 8:00pm.

"Barney's Version"

Runtime: 2 hr. 12 min.

Rated R for language and some sexual content

Cast: Paul Giamatti, Dustin Hoffman, Rosamund Pike, Minnie Driver, Rachelle Lafevre, Scott Speedman

Director: Richard J. Lewis

Barney Panofsky is a character we admire and pity in equal measure.  The biggest achievement in "Barney's Version" is that we never really judge him, even when afforded every opportunity to do so.  That's a tribute to Paul Giamatti, whose portrayal of Panofsky runs the gamut from charismatic to vulnerable so effectively and completely that our judgments--good or bad--are reserved for those personalities that surround him. 

Based upon the novel by the late Mordecai Richler, the movie opens with an aging Barney Panofsky--bitter, drunk, and phone in hand--making a call to his ex-wife's new husband in the middle of the night, offering up a slew of acerbic zingers.  From there, the film flashes back to Rome in the 70s.  The story spans some thirty years.  We bear witness to Barney's failed marriages...

The first was to a knocked up, flower-child free-spirit (Rachel Lefevere) whose promiscuity seemed lightweight compared to her flittering personality.  (After Barney realizes the child isn't his, he opts not to confront her about it, choosing instead to offer consolation.  Her response?  "Oh, Barney.  You really do wear your heart on your sleeve.  Now put it away, it's disgusting to look at.") 

The second was to the attitude-cloaked daughter (Minnie Driver) of a rich tycoon.  Barney was immediately attracted to her, but her father's unbridled disgust for both Barney and his father, Izzy (Dustin Hoffman), regardless of the public setting, became too much for Barney to bear. 

His new family's disdain is such a cross to bear that the moment he lays eyes on Miriam Grant (Rosemund Pike) at the wedding reception, Barney wastes no time in approaching her and striking up a conversation.  He is so smitten, so enthralled, that he follows her to the train station and professes his love for her.  Understandably, she rebuffs his advances.  We know, however, Barney will not be deterred.  Love at first sight?  ("I can't believe it happened!" he exclaims.  "It actually happens!")

Barney divorces wife #2, thanks in large part to an affair between her and his best friend, Boogie (Scott Speedman), then proceeds to woo Miriam in every way imaginable.  She finally agrees to dinner.  After a rough start (battling a bout of anxiety, Barney drinks himself into a stupor before the dinner, gets sick) they get to talking.  "I'm just gonna keep on talking.  And talking," Barney says.  "Because I'm so afraid of that little pause, where you say that you'd best be getting going.  I'm so afraid of that."  But the pause comes and goes.  She's not leaving.  She's won over.

Miriam is far more understanding and tolerant than his first wives, but perceptive and cautious, too.  "With everything you've done to pursue me, how do I know I can trust you?"  she asks earnestly.  He smiles, removes a cigar-clipper from his pocket.  "I'll just cut it off," he jokes.  The tragedy here is that he doesn't know the answer, but she (and we) do.

Barney Panofsky seems, at first, like the prototypical self-destructive personality, yet Giamatti doesn't really play him as one, opting instead to imbue him with a passion for the chase, an adoration for romantic idealism, and an unfortunate inability to grow as a person.  He can certainly love.  We see this not only in the early stages of his relationship with Miriam, but especially in scenes with his father.  There is no undercurrent of tension.  Barney and Izzy share an unfettered love and appreciation for each others' quirks and foibles. 

I've seen Rosamund Pike in a few movies, and she hasn't really stood out to me.  Too often she comes off as a little flat in her performances.  Not mannered per se.  (There's a fluidity to her line delivery that's comfortable.)  But she reminds me of a stage actor who has done virtually nothing other than period pieces, and now has trouble connecting emotionally to her surroundings.  I did find her more effective here than in the past, though I wonder if it's because she's playing off the consistently intriguing Giamatti.  I came to accept her portrayal as Miriam... I liked her understated delivery, particularly in later scenes as she patiently explains her need for growth to a husband who seems stunted in his.

The movie is like a demonstration of two cinematic tones.  The first half is sharp, witty, charming, and funny.  The second half becomes much more nuanced in its pacing, more melancholic, and distinctly sentimental.  Yet as Barney slips away into the cloud of Alzheimer's, we're privy to a truth Barney Panofsky is never fully able to comprehend...

That while all he wanted was to find someone who didn't see him as the awkward, insecure, flawed outcast he perceived himself to be... Barney ended up with something better.  Someone who saw those flaws crystal-clear.  Weighed the risk.  Measured it.  And ultimately embraced it. 

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Biutiful"

Runtime: 2 hr. 27 min.

Rated R for disturbing images, language, some sexual content, nudity and drug use

Cast: Javier Bardem, Marcel Alvarez, Eduard Fernandez, Diarytou Daff, Cheng Taishen

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

In our life's journey, our choices are far more important than our pace.  We have greater control over our choices.

It's a noble thought, wanting to make every life decision the right one.  On our own personal existential avenues, however, we learn down the road that life's right decisions will invariably amend themselves into more appropriate and necessary decisions.  Then one day we're hit with the cold reality that the right decisions and the necessary decisions often take on vastly different forms.

This is especially true for Uxbal (Javier Bardem), a survivalist of sorts on the streets
crisscrossing the seedy underbelly of Barcelona.  Alejandro Gonzales Innaritu's "Buitiful" is the harrowing story of Uxbal's attempt to make the best choices for his children as prostate cancer rapidly eats away at his life.  The film's strength comes from the belief that solidifying one's relationships is the safest passage to the beyond, even for those who have few relationships to begin with.  (After all, legacies are merely contemplated during mid-life crises.  I imagine the emotional and spiritual health of your loved ones is contemplated during the final days of your life.)

We know early on Uxbal is facing a medical crisis.  He is being examined in a clinic.  The doctor informs him that blood needs to be taken, then leaves the room as a lab assistant enters.  She proceeds to draw blood, but Uxbal doesn't trust her.  ("Is the syringe clean?  Here, get me another one.  Let me do it.")  It's a strong opening, telling us almost everything we need to know about Uxbal...

He has grown up on the streets.  He knows the dangers.  The atmosphere.  The aggression.  The consequences of various actions.  Uxbal is a study in occupational duality.  We learn his primary means of support is a variegated buffet of illegal acts... most notably human trafficking.  He seems like the shadiest of characters until we see him with his family.  Here he takes on the persona of devoted family man, and we come to understand that his involvement in illegal transgressions was how he must have survived his youth on those very same streets.  We're told he never knew his father, and his mother passed away when he was six.  He doesn't remember her. 

After hearing the grim diagnosis, Uxbal makes a series of decisions to help his children after he's gone.  Some are good, like taking in the wife (Diaryatou Daff) of a Senegalese immigrant recently deported.  Some not so good, like reuniting with his estranged wife (Maricel Alvarez), a bipolar disorder sufferer who works as either a masseuse or more, depending on her need for money.  We also learn that Uxbal has a kind of clairvoyant ability... he accepts monetary sums for communicating with the recently departed.

The emotional crux of the story hinges on one particular decision Uxbal makes.  It's a choice made not out of greed, but because his children will need the money after his death.  I won't reveal the decision, but it does have truly horrific consequences.  Uxbal is devastated.  How can he enter the afterlife with a heart so burdened? 

Alejandro Gonzales Innarritu ("Amores Perros", "21 Grams", "Babel") is a wildly innovative storyteller, though his filmmaking techniques do sometimes gravitate toward self-indulgence.  "Biutiful" is mostly skilled in its visual style.  The strictly handheld camera work is an effective tool for conveying the cold, harsh, gritty reality faced by those caught in the undertow of urban crime.  I also admired the lighting.  Sometimes Uxbal is lit with a warm glow, other times in gelid shades of blue... the effect captures the tortuous final journey of the human soul.

Unlike Innarritu's previous works, the film does not make use of a fluctuating timeline.  The story is conveyed in a refreshingly straightforward manner, though it does meander a little.  If there's a drawback here, I think it's that the movie seems to be juggling one too many balls in the air.  Personally, I could have done without the clairvoyance angle.  The whole idea of it seemed, to me, a bit superfluous.  Sure, Innarritu does add nifty visual touches to certain scenes.  The most effective shows the "ghosts" of the recently deceased resting against the ceiling.  A nice bit of symbolism--those souls unable to "free" themselves--but since it was already established that Uxbal had clairvoyant abilities, those effects--cool as they are--don't have much narrative resonance.  In the end, they add little to the story. 

Despite a couple reservations, I do recommend the film.  It's a powerful story of redemption and securing peace in the afterlife by amends in this life.  Playing a flawed, layered, tortured soul is itself a tall order, and Javier Bardem is terrific at carrying us along on his journey in spite of those complexities.  Or maybe because of them.  "What's out there?" he asks at the end.  It's a question that not only resonates for him in the afterlife, but it offers a newfound meaning for his offspring as they carry on in this one.

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Unknown"

Runtime: 1 hour, 53 minutes

Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of violence and action, and brief sexual content

Cast: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger, January Jones, Aidan Quinn, Bruno Ganz, Frank Langella

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

"Unknown" is an unapologetically preposterous movie, which is exactly what it should be.  If your premise hinges around a treasure trove of plot holes, your best approach is one that offers up the fewest excuses. 

Yes, the film is implausible.  It knows this.  And we know it, too.  We can sense that the "reveal"  will belie whatever logic is matched up against it.  The movie doesn't try to pass itself off as a realistic drama.  Instead, it attempts to stay just plausible enough to keep our interest intact.  This does require a suspension of our disbelief.  Sometimes we have to be willing to meet movies halfway.

The story opens as an airplane lands in Berlin.  Aboard are Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife, Liz (January Jones).  He's in town for a biochemical conference.  They take a taxi to their hotel, but Harris realizes he's left his attache case at the airport.  He heads back, but an accident occurs on his way there.  The cab plunges off a bridge, crashes into an icy river.  Harris is saved by the driver (Diane Kruger), though she darts off without word immediately following the rescue.

He awakes in the hospital, is told by his doctor that he's been in a coma for four days.  He struggles with the details of what happened to him, but he does remember bits and pieces of his life.  He leaves the hospital, returns to his hotel, sees Liz already at the conference.  But she doesn't recognize him.  "You must have me confused with someone else," she says.  "This is my husband..."  And emerging from a throng of guests is another Martin Harris (Aidan Quinn). 

Is the real Martin Harris crazy?  Is he who he says he is?  Who he believes he is?  Or is there a whole lot more going on than meets the eye?  To find answers, Harris turns back to the taxi driver, who he locates through another employee of the cab company.  In addition, he seeks guidance from a former member of the German Police (Bruno Ganz), who wants to believe Harris' story, but does ask a few common sense questions.  ("But how can these people create a random accident that sends your car off a bridge?  They're good, but they're not God.") 

Common sense would dictate that there is, indeed, more going on here.  Yet the film is shot in a cold, unforgiving manner that does give rise to the possibility that Martin Harris just might be hallucinating.  Plus, there are those burning questions that are impossible to answer.  If his life has, in fact, been taken over, how can the perpetrators have concocted such a random set of circumstances? 

One of the keys that makes the film work is the central performance of Liam Neeson.  He's quite adept at playing transparent characters.  That's a compliment.  Despite his imposing physical stature, Neeson is an actor that doesn't grandstand or pose.  Even in such roles as the heroic legend Robert Roy MacGregor, Neeson portrayed him as a quiet, unassuming family man who was pushed into conflict despite all efforts to remain neutral.  Here, he plays Harris as a simple man with a solitary goal... to get back his identity.  He doesn't complicate his character's situation with an added degree of resentment toward his perceived enemies or the apparent betrayal of his wife.  The truth is the only thing that matters, regardless of where it takes him.

Diane Kruger has been saddled with the thankless role of the plucky sidekick who finds herself unwittingly caught up in Harris' dilemma.  She's effective, though.  January Jones and Aidan Quinn somehow manage to keep their performances grounded.  They continuously insist that Harris is delusional, though both possess penetratingly bizarre poker faces that can madden the sanest of people. 

The most interesting character, however, is the aging former German Police officer played by Bruno Ganz.  He has his own reasons for helping Harris, though they're not revealed until late.  His best scene is shared with the always-reliable Frank Langella.  They play two relic spies who know what the other is thinking before we do... the scene they share morphs from suspense to poignancy. 

Some people refuse the suspension of disbelief.  I don't, so long as the movie asking it of me is competent enough to keep me entertained.  The lack of plausibility can (not always, but sometimes) be offset by skilled filmmaking.  The science-fiction thriller "I am Number Four" was also released this week... that one was not only incompetent and uninteresting, but also had an inexplicably bloated sense of cinematic worth.  "Unknown" is, at least, skilled in what is does and cognizant of what it is.  It's implausible, sure, but also crackling, fast-paced, and entertaining.  I didn't mind meeting it halfway.

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"I am Number Four"

Runtime: 1 hour, 44 minutes

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for brief language

Cast: Alex Pettyfer, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer, Dianna Agron, Callan McAuliffe, Kevin Durand

Director: D.J. Caruso

I have a problem with movies that expect me to be hip to their act from the get go.  The most curious thing about "I am Number Four" is that it doesn't seem to be trying very hard to engage my interest.

The film comes off as a bit too impressed with itself, treating its audience like rabid fans instead of common viewers whose interest needs to be captured.  It's like a door-to-door salesman who skips the pitch and moves right on to the deal-making handshake.

The story involves a hero I didn't like being pursued by villains I didn't fear emerging from a backstory I couldn't care less about.  Few movies cater to my apathy like this one.  And please, dear reader, don't ply me with how I need to read the Pittacus Lore novel upon which the film is based to better understand what's happening here.  From my perspective, there are only two things that can be extrapolated from the experience.  Either a) this is a poor adaptation of the novel, or b) authors James Frey and Jobie Hughes (a.k.a. Pittacus Lore) are far less imaginative that I think they are.  Pick your poison.

A lazy attempt to combine what seems to be a "Twilight"-type romance with a Michael Bay-style action epic, the plot involves a seemingly ordinary teenager named John (Alex Pettyfer).  Seemingly, of course, because he's actually an alien being from a planet called Lorien.  He has been born with special powers but now is being hunted by a race of tattooed beings known as Mogadorians.  So he, along with nine others, have taken refuge in various locations on earth.  John is number four.  (The survivors are being hunted in numerical order.  I'm sure there's a reason for this.  I don't know it.) 

He has moved to rural Ohio with his protector Henri (Timothy Olyphant).  Out of boredom, John enrolls in the local high school, befriends an extra-terrestrial-obsessed geek (Callan McAuliffe), falls in love with a budding young photographer named Sarah (Dianna Agron), which enrages the school jock (Jake Abel).  All the while John is being sought out by another survivor, Number Six (Teresa Palmer).

As the above cliches play out, we wait with minuscule interest as the dreaded Mogadorians get closer to their prey.  They take an unusually long time to locate John despite the fact that he is quite conspicuous at the high school, his budding superpowers gaining unwanted attention. 

The villains finally set a trap for him by kidnapping Henri, making a call and ordering John to come to a particular location before Henri is killed.  John complies, finds Henri in a dilapidated house... but the Mogadorians are nowhere in sight.  They've left the premises.  Seriously.  They actually stepped out for a moment.  (What, did they have some prior engagement they just couldn't get out of?  Did they forget that had a "thing"?  Great game plan.)  What we have here is a battle of wits between a refugee hero dying to get caught and a bunch of galactic buffoons who couldn't locate the ground from atop it. 

The director is D.J. Caruso, a filmmaker of distinctly modest skill who, at this point in his career anyway, is only as effective as the material he's been given.  He handled the suspense genre with "Disturbia" and made "Eagle Eye" fast-paced enough to almost make you forget what a ludicrous premise that was. 

This movie, however, is a mess from top to bottom.  From the blond-haired, blue-eyed casting choices that make the CW Network look like a cross-cultural melting pot to the muddy CGI effects to the very inconsistencies regarding the characters' superpowers.  (Sometimes blue rays fly from Number Four's palms, sometimes not.  Sometimes he can propel himself through the air, sometimes not.  Sometimes he can alter physical reality, sometimes not.)  Not nearly as much thought has gone into this as the filmmakers would have you believe.

The story is apparently the beginning of a would-be franchise.  "The survivors are better off fighting together," we hear John say in a final voice-over narration.  It's the kind of statement meant to imbue in us the impetus to dive further into this mind-numbing concept.  "We will fight.  Earth is as good a place as any in the universe.  I know."  I'll have to take Number Four's word for it.  I don't care enough not to.

*  out of  * * * *  stars

"The Illusionist"

Runtime:1 hr. 30 min.

Rated PG for thematic elements and smoking

Cast: Jean-Claude Donda, Eilidh Rankin

Director: Sylvain Chomet

"The Illusionist" is a richly drawn, visually engaging animation from director Sylvain Chomet ("The Triplets of Belleville").  It's a gentle story that waltzes somewhere between enchantment and melancholy.

We open in Paris.  The year is 1959.  A lifelong performing magician prepares to take the stage.  The crowd is already restless.  Before the curtain goes up, the magician must tame his rather rebellious rabbit, who doesn't take too kindly to awaiting his emergence from a top hat.  Eventually the lights come up and...

He's done this for nearly his whole life.  We're not told this, but we can sense it.  His posture, even when not performing, seems perpetually bent forward.  As though he's in a constant state of bowing... an appreciation of anyone kind enough to spare a moment of attention.  Yet an act of performance art that once held the interest of audiences worldwide has now given way to more "modern" performances.  Most notably, rock 'n roll musicians.  Not fully deterred, the magician continues to travel the countryside, seeking random employment where he can.

His travels eventually lead him to an isolated village in Scotland.  There, he befriends a young girl whose interest is piqued upon his arrival.  She is delighted by his act, though doesn't see it as performance art... still innocent enough to leave the possibility open that actual magic can exist.  The eager young girl surreptitiously follows him aboard a ship toward his next destination.  He is surprised, but doesn't shoo her away.  (There's a nice moment when a ticket-taker asks for her pass.  She looks around.  Nervous.  Then glances at the magician and points.  He hesitates, but grins, nods, waves his hand and voila... a ticket appears in his hand.  Her ticket.)

His reluctance to send her back seems little more than an appreciation for her innocence.  The possibility of joy and delight is void in his life now, and he appears willing to afford her the belief that he can pull miracles out of thin air, even at the cost of his own financial situation.  They can both receive joy from this friendship.

They end up on Edinburgh, take refuge in a second-rate hotel that seems a boardinghouse for lost and desperate artists.  (A lonely ventriloquist, a heartbroken clown, and a trio of trapeze artists who double as canvas painters.)  It's here where the magician must face the painful truth that enchantment will ultimately have to be husked from the ear of cold reality.

That must be painful for those artists who forever seek self-esteem solely from their craft.  I've known people like this, and have always felt somewhat bad for them, though I know they wouldn't welcome the sentiment.  (I don't like to think of myself an cynical, but the whole Peter-Pan-never-want-to-grow-up thing never resonated with me.  I just can't bear the thought of clinging to an idea I knew those I loved would eventually grow out of.) 

Working from a script by Jacques Tati, director Sylvain Chomet conveys the melancholic beauty of the story though marvelously textured animation.  (The Edinburgh cityscape is especially alluring.)  There is no dialogue here.  Well, there's a few sporadic bits in french and Gaelic, but it's not used in the conventional sense.  It's more like additional set pieces... we're given just enough to know what's going on.  The strength of the film is how much is conveyed with visuals alone.  There's an effortless narrative grace to animation that's not overdone with CGI.

The movie also incorporates various laughs.  Some are better than others.  I liked the scene where the magician, in order to make ends meet, takes a job in a department store display, pulling ladies' garments out of thin air.  But there are awkward attempts at humor, too.  At one point, the magician believes the girl has cooked his rabbit for dinner in a scene that seems forced and a bit out of place. 

Despite a few awkward moments, I enjoyed the movie.  It's enchanting, funny, and yes... sad.  (The final shot in the film contains a revelation of surprising strength.)  Despite the melancholic nature of the story, I left the theatre with an appreciation for what the movie reminded me of... that the wonder and joyous possibility afforded though art may be fleeting, but can live forever in the minds of those fortunate enough to think back to when magic was the focus of their universe. 

* * *  out of  * * * *  stars

"Another Year"

Runtime:2 hr. 9 min.

Rated R for language

Cast: Jim Broadbent, Lesley Manville, Ruth Sheen, Peter Wight, Oliver Maltman

Director: Mike Leigh

The key moment in Mike Leigh's "Another Year" comes right at the beginning.  We see a depressed middle-age woman (played by Imelda Staunton) in a clinic for what she describes as sleep-deprivation.  The doctor asks her questions about her personal life.  What could be giving her stress?  She doesn't want to answer.  Merely wants a drug to help her sleep. 

We see her only one other time during the course of the movie.  It's in a session with the psychologist at the same clinic... a kind-eyed counselor named Gerri (Ruth Sheen).  Again, the patient refuses to discuss the details of her personal life.  She doesn't seem angry.  There's no passion in her face.  No fury.  No vitriolic reactions to her environment.  Instead, her eyes gently shift back and forth... as though seeking a portal of escape from the darkness within.  She leaves the session, and we never see her again.

We do, however, see another character just like her in the film.  A major character.  She's the counselor's assistant at the clinic.  Her name is Mary (Lesley Manville).  Mary doesn't reach the same level of depression as the earlier patient until the movie's conclusion.  We don't draw the parallels between the two characters until the film's final shot.

The aforementioned parallel is the kind of character observation that seems to dot the cinematic landscape of director Mike Leigh.  One can describe "Another Year" as a movie where barely anything happens.  That appears to be the way Leigh likes it.  He's more interested in following where his characters end up as opposed to dictating their fates.  It's safe to say this movie isn't for everyone. 

Leigh is so enamored with the idea of letting his characters dictate the narrative direction that he doesn't really designate a lead.  Mary emerges as the dominant character, but the story begins by centering around the uniquely happy marriage of the counselor Gerri and her engineer husband, Tom (Jim Broadbent).  They are nearing their retirement, and have one of those rare, comfortable, happy unions.  The story takes place during the course of a year, as we follow various interactions between the couple and their closest ties.  Friends and family.  All trudging through their own marshes of pain and insecurity.

We meet their son, Joe (Oliver Maltman).  A seemingly well-adjusted young man though taking his sweet time in finding someone to share his life with.  We're also introduced to Tom's best friend, Ken (Peter Wight) who we're told was a strong, handsome young man in his youth, but is now constantly nursing an alcoholic beverage while lamenting over the cruel ticking of life's clock.  He can't bear the thought of being his age and single.  The desperation drips from his face.  Later in the story we meet Tom's brother, Ronnie (David Bradley) who has recently lost his wife.

And then there's Mary.  A towering inferno of insecurity, Mary feels the need to fill any silence with an endless spillage of banal observations... anything to avoid the horrific possibility that those in her field of gravity will judge her.  She finds herself attracted to Joe, and is deeply hurt to discover he has recently taken up with a lovely, high-spirited young woman named Katie (Karina Fernandez).  Her negative reaction toward Katie is blatant and coarse.  Mary keeps getting her name wrong and dismisses her input with glib remarks, until we realize that she's not jealous of Katie because of her relationship with Joe.  She's jealous of Katie for the same reason she's jealous of just about everybody... because they're happy and she's not.

A character-actor of unmatched talent, Lesley Manville is skilled at making Mary's bad luck the result of her own self-loathing.  We never really sympathize with her.  She's too self-destructive.  Consider the way she responds to Ken's romantic overtures toward her.  Ken being equally desperate, his puppy-dog facial expressions would wear on the nerves of even the most patient of women.  Yet her disgust is delivered in such a gratuitously over-the-top manner.  Repulsion is, after all, a self-hating sentiment, regardless of the direction in which it is aimed.

What makes films like this interesting is not knowing where the story will end up.  In a sense, it doesn't really end so much as lead back to the beginning.  You could say Mary and the depressed woman at the outset are, in a figurative sense, the same person.  Mary reminds me of the goofy driving instructor in Leigh's "Happy-Go-Lucky".  Mike Leigh gives resonance to characters that, in other movies, would qualify as little more than quirky narrative set-pieces that give a story color.  I like the fact that Leigh is invested in those types of characters.  It's rare for a movie to focus their attention on such individuals.

It bears repeating that this movie isn't for everyone.  It's quite modest.  Deliberately-paced.  The film quietly takes in its narrative elements.  Like the title suggests, it's merely an observation into the lives of people we know, or could know.  Or could love.  Or could be.  If you're seeking an escape from day-to-day humdrum, look elsewhere.  But as one who struggles daily with life's predicaments, this film resonates like few can.

* * * 1/2  out of  * * * *  stars