Archive Analysis: "Cinderella Man" and "Network"

Zach's Favorite Film #15

Cinderella Man

Directed by: Ron Howard
Starring: Russel Crowe, Renee Zellweger, Paul Giamatti
Rated: PG-13 for intense boxing violence and some language

Throwing technical skills and storytelling aside, Cinderella Man is a purely emotional film and experience. Russell Crowe and Paul Giamatti give terrific performances in the biopic of depression-era boxer Jim Braddock, who turned his career around when he returned to boxing, simply to try and make ends meet for his family. While some may scoff at the cliché nature of the story, lack of real technical value, or even it’s emphasis on man’s control over destiny, one can’t deny it’s beautiful themes of masculinity, integrity, taking responsibility for one’s life, and emphasis on family, making it a champion of a film.

Network

Directed by: Sidney Lumet
Starring: Faye Dunaway, William Holden, Peter Finch, Robert Duvall
Rated: R (my unofficial reasoning would be: for strong language and sexuality)

Sidney Lumet’s famous satire Network is a critical favorite, winner of three acting Oscars in 1976, and is AFI’s Top 100 Films list. Why is it popular? Because it played into the national paranoia of the mid-to-late 1970s, realizing the world the media was presenting was built on rating and popularity, and not on truth. Don’t get distracted by it’s content, story, subplots or performances; this movie is all about its message, a narrative version of Neil Postman. Network, through it’s terrific cast (including the lovely Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall) and intriguing plot echo TV anchor Edward Murrow’s famous warning that, if the television is only a means of entertainment, than it’s just a box of flashing lights. And, when the world refuses to tell us that, it makes people mad…

Movie Review: "Robin Hood"

Robin Hood

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Russel Crowe, Cate Blanchette, Max Von Sydow
Rated: PG-13 for violence including some intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content

Robin Hood, the legendary English outlaw, has gone through many transformations over the years, both in legend and on screen. Men in green tights, Kevin Costner with a mullet, and even an animated fox have all had opportunities at portraying the legend. Ridley Scott’s new adaptation considered a variety of unique versions of the story, one in which Robin would be the villain, another where he would pretend to become the Sheriff of Nottingham. However, Scott eventually settled on the “historical story of Robin” approach, giving us another medieval epic about the man who “robbed from the rich to give to the poor.” At least, that’s what you are led to believe.

While it is interesting to see Robin and company in a more historical context (not wearing green tights, dealing with the Magna Carta), the film goes beyond those simple expectations and deliver a different story than that of the “Gladiator spin-off” most were expecting; it’s lighter and more comical. There are moments where the plot almost feels more like a period dramedy than that of a grand epic. And, while there is an amount of corniness and eye-rolling moments that come with it, Robin Hood is still a fun and exciting movie. The fights are fantastic, the cast (which includes Cate Blanchette, Matthew Macfadyen, and Max Von Sydow) is strong, and the style is authentic and entertaining.

The largest problem with the film is Crowe’s Robin, a relatively dull protagonist whose character development is about as one dimensional as one can get. Crowe, like his character, also feels out of place: he’s too serious to be a “merry man”, too old to be having those “become the man your father raised” moments, and he looked more like a knight than an English outlaw. Despite it’s (and Crowe’s) mistakes, Robin Hood is a fun movie that foreshadows historical events in human liberty and English law. It’s like the 2005 film King Arthur, minus the Bruckheimer feel; don’t take it too serious, and you’ll have a lot of fun, and maybe learn some stuff along the way. And, while it certainly won’t be a classic like Gladiator, it also won’t be a mockery like the Costner version. When it comes to Robin Hood, get the animated fox version for the children, and the Scott version for adults. Both audiences will have a good time.

Movie Review: "Iron Man 2"

Iron Man 2

Directed by: John Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke,
Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell
Rated: PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some language

As a young child, I idolized the superhero Iron Man as my favorite of the Avengers, thanks largely to the arcade game that my parents wouldn’t let me play. Because of this, I imagined (and wrote) many stories about Iron Man, most of which rivaled that of his newest film, Iron Man 2.

Don’t get me wrong, Iron Man 2 is not a flop like most superhero sequels. It has the action, jokes, and explosions that one expects from a high-profile summer blockbuster, but it is still missing the creativity and excitement that characterized the first film. It hardly had any action until the final fight at the end. The villains (one of which is the brilliant Sam Rockwell) had way too much screen time for their relatively shallow plans, motives, and plot points. Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) was an active character in the first film, but brought nothing to the plot of the sequel. Scarlett Johansson’s character only added another star/superhero to the already crowded list of characters (which also gave more time to Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, and the director/actor John Favreau.) Even the charismatic and witty Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) was rather stale, thanks to meaningless subplots about his health and father. Besides his senate hearings and drunken birthday party, Stark was relatively boring this time around.

Even the scale of Iron Man 2 seemed a bit off. While most superhero movies follow the hero thwarting situations bigger than themselves, Stark’s problems stem from his own last name. Hammer and Ivanko don’t care about world domination or terrorism; they simply want to rid the world of Tony Stark. And, while they blame it on his capitalistic family, one can't help but wonder if it's because screenwriter Justin Theroux couldn't think of a better reason. I know I could have.

Archive Analysis: "The Dark Knight"

Zach's Favorite Movie #16

The Dark Knight
Directed by: Chris Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart,
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine
Rated:PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace (borderline R in my opinion)

Few films have had the financial success, critical reception, and overwhelming popularity than that of Chris Nolan’s second Batman film, The Dark Knight. Much can be said (and has been) as to why the film was so popular, ranging from the success of the first film, to the strong production value, to even the chilling performance of the late Heath Ledger. Some have even attributed it to the film’s “darkness”, and called on other superhero franchises to follow suit. This, of course, is inaccurate. What sets The Dark Knight apart from other superhero films is it’s depth. When most comic books are adapted into a mere sensual experience (meaning they rely heavily on the senses), The Dark Knight brings more than just another fight scene and explosion to the screen.

After watching it in theaters, I left relatively disappointed. I was expecting another comic book movie, and definitely didn’t get that experience. Yet, unlike other graphic novel adaptations, I felt compelled to watch it again (and again, and again..). And, upon each subsequent viewing, I feel more connected to the themes and issues that Nolan and company were trying to convey. He certainly wasn’t making another comic book movie.

The most obvious themes are that of the Joker’s nihilistic evilness, or being evil for no real tangible reason. Reviewers (including those in World Magazine) compared the Joker to the devil, but I feel this is totally missing Nolan’s point. The Joker is attempting to show the evilness of humanity, and not the evilness of evil, itself. When he places humanity in similar situations, he feels that they, too, will become evil, like him. In fact, the only time in the movie that he gets visibly frustrated with people is when they say he’s crazy, with him responding in a serious tone “no I’m not,” as if to say “you are no different.” While humanity certainly doesn’t go to the extremes that the Joker goes to, one has to acknowledge and wrestle with the Joker’s belief: mankind is naturally evil.

But, don’t give up hope. Nolan also gives a figure and symbol of good. One who fights evil and helps his fellow man. He even goes as far as to take the responsibility for guilty man’s actions, in order to “save” the people of Gotham. This self-sacrificing response to pure evil is Nolan’s response to the Joker’s nihilism. While certain not what most would consider a “Christian film”, one can’t deny the beautiful Christ-like imagery of the final five minutes of the film. For that, alone, one has to consider The Dark Knight as a heroic film.

Archive Analysis: "Monsters Inc" and "Witness"

Monsters Inc.
Directed by: Pete Doctor
Starring: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Steve Buscemi

Rated:G

I remember when I first watched Monsters Inc. I felt something different, that I had never felt before in an animated movie: being emotionally moved. Because of that, Monsters Inc has become a classic animated film in my book, and one of my favorite Pixar films of all time. The animation and story is great, but it’s the love and friendship between the characters that truly tug at your heart. While we seem to now such things from Pixar, one should never get over how good their films truly are.

Witness
Directed by: Peter Weir
Starring: Harrison Ford, Kelly McGillis

Rated:R (my unofficial reasoning would be: for violence, nudity, and brief strong language)

Peter Weir’s film Witness follows detective John Book, played by Harrison Ford, who must protect a young Amish boy, the only witness of murder, from a band of crooked cops. While one would expect the film to deal with the idea of trying to separate oneself from evil the world, or even issues of pacifism versus self-protection, Witness seems to only focus on a forbidden love affair between detective Book and the son’s widowed mother, and even then doesn’t come to any real conclusions. A terrific premise with the potential of deep and interesting themes is wasted on a shallow script. Can I get a witness?