Sneakin’ In Da Movies

This should about catch me up on movies for now. Some good, some… well… not so much.

First, there was Hollywoodland. This is the true story of an actor that started out playing in a few significant films, but never as the star. As his career progressed, he found himself relegated to lesser roles than for which he had hoped. He had a “pose” for every situation, and relied on his good looks and strong chin to lead the way for him, but he never garnered significant respect for his acting. Instead, he relied upon his connections with other more successful people in the movie industry to keep him afloat. No, the film isn’t actually about Ben Affleck, but he does portray the actor in question. The movie analyzes the events leading up to and surrounding the apparent suicide of George Reeves, the man best known for his portrayal of Superman in the 50’s television series. In fairness to Mr. Reeves, the tv series was wildly successful with its target audience for a time. What I liked about the movie: I can’t vouch for its accuracy (I never lived in the 1950’s), but the sense of time for the film seemed very real to me. I also appreciated the performances of particularly Adrien Brody and also Diane Lane. Their characters were both rather real for me and moved through a developmental arc throughout the picture. It will not surprise you to hear that though the role provided the opportunity, Affleck’s character didn’t develop quite as much. The various scenes portraying alternative explanations for the end of his life may have had something to do with the muddled mess the character seemed to be. I also could have done without the multiple gratuitous bare buttocks shots I had to endure from Mr. Affleck. Overall, I don’t find this piece of history to be terribly compelling, but it was a nice period piece with a bit of noir/big hollywood feel. IMDB gives it a 6.6, and for what it is, that probably is close enough.

For our next entry, let’s take a look at Eragon. This film was based on a book I read a couple of years ago. Picking up the book, I thought I was getting something in the vein of Harry Potter, or other similarly good literature aimed at children. Although not nearly as good as Rowling, the book did not disappoint in this regard. Some folks have opined that Eragon lifted a bit too shamelessly and liberally from the works of Tolkien. I believe this only to be true insomuch as both relied on heroic archetypes. That was the book. This is the movie. The story was not the movie’s problem. One incredibly horrible screenplay was. Or was it slash and burn editing? Hard to tell. The one thing for certain is that the movie was a near-incoherent mess. The characters were incredibly shallow and unsympathetic. The action scenes were OK in places, but in most unremarkable. If this was to serve as the foundation for a movie on Paolini’s second book, Eldest, the whole mess will undoubtedly sink into a fantastical abyss under it’s own weight. The 4.9 it received on IMDB is generous, but anything under a 5 really isn’t worth rating with any greater specificity.

Next was the Guardian. This Costner/Kutcher flick was in many ways predictable. Its a tale of a “changing of the guard” of a sorts within the US Coast Guard, as one legendary rescue swimmer takes a role training the next generation. You could cynically condense the film into Officer and a Gentleman meets the Perfect Storm meets Top Gun. While this distillation may be cynical, its not far off either. However, I wouldn’t dismiss the film on these grounds. Here are the points of redemption: 1) Costner is likable. Has he even not been? He’s fun to watch and easy to identify with. 2) Kutcher is actually believable. This is one of the questions I watched the movie to answer. Would I constantly be waiting for him to grin and tell me I had been Punk’d for renting it? As it turns out, no. He does a good job creating the character for which the script was written. If the right movie comes along, I’d want to see him in another dramatic role. 3) This is a good flick. It’s not great, and it’s not high art, but it is a good story with good characters and, yes, good special effects. IMDB gives up a 6.6. I’d probably push it over the 7 mark.

Finally (for this installment, anyway) there is Million Dollar Baby. To me, one of the marks of a truly great film is its ability to continue to insinuate itself into your consciousness for days or even weeks after you see it. I don’t mean this in the sort of way that some annoying children’s tune or 80’s song gets in your head either. I mean in the sort of way that you know you have seen something significant and that there are questions poised that just aren’t that easy to puzzle out. That there are images that are so enduring you know it will take a long time to shake them. Being left with the feeling that not only did you not see something coming, but that when you are caught off guard by it, it wasn’t just trickery or emotional or intellectual dishonesty that caused the story to go that way, but rather fantastic story telling. This is that sort of film. Here’s the really great thing though: this film is not only good strategically. It’s also excellent tactically. I’m not giving away any spoilers to say that when the film is over, I wanted to listen to Frankie and Scrap banter more. I wanted to know Maggie better. I wanted to know what the deal was with the minister. I simply wanted more and knew there wasn’t any more. You may be saying at this point “Are you going to tell us what the movie is about?”. In short, no. In part, that’s because I am still working that part out. And that, in part, is why this movie is as great as it is. IMDB gave this one an 8.3. That’s too dang low. Buy it, watch it, then watch it again.