Half-Baked 'Man of Steel' is Both Awesome and Annoying

If half the battle is not looking silly in the suit, Henry Cavill
was pretty set from the get go.

Thus far, Man of Steel has sharply divided audiences. It currently rates rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet it garnered an A- CinemaScore. Some, like HitFix’s Drew McWeeny, have passionately argued its merits, while others like Ryan Silberstein, our friend over at Filmhash, have criticized the film for having a lack of substance.

That diversity of opinion seems appropriate to me, since I somehow found the film to be simultaneously infuriating and delightful. The reason for that is simple – nearly every major story impulse by the creative team (including director Zack Snyder, producer Christopher Nolan, and screenwriter David Goyer) comes across as a bold and laudable choice that somehow got mucked up in the execution. 

Take, for instance, the film’s main thematic drive, which basically concerns two things – the ability to choose your destiny and the question of what the world will make of Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman (Henry Cavill) once he is revealed. 

On Krypton, where citizens are engineered for very specific purposes, Kal-El’s father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) predicts his son will choose his own destiny and that the people of Earth will embrace him as a guiding god and symbol of hope. On Earth, adoptive father Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) also believes Clark will choose what type of man he will become and that, whatever that decision is, it will change the world. However, unlike Jor-El, he is afraid about how the world will respond to a super-powered alien being.

So I get that Lois Lane is assisting the army and all, but why do 

they give her a jumpsuit?

Much of this framework is laid very carefully, but then laziness sets in and the story begins to lose its grip. A devastating tragedy results from Jonathan Kent’s insistence that Clark keep his powers hidden, and Costner plays the hell out of it, but the whole situation leading up to that moment is such inorganic horseshit, that it undercuts the importance of what should be a pivotal moment for our hero. 

Ultimately, Clark is forced to out himself to the public because of the ultimatum proposed by chief villain General Zod (Michal Shannon), a Kryptonian he knows to have killed his birth father, which sort of defangs the whole choice thing. To be fair, he does get to choose how he responds, opting for the Jesus-like choice to put his faith in human kind, and the captive sequence that follows is one of the best (and most charming) parts of the movie.

Unfortunately, the film then quickly becomes an endless barrage of action, and it never truly explores the question of if this super-powered god will be accepted by Earth’s inhabitants, which is odd given just how much time is spent setting it up. Having seen the finished product, it seems the movie may have been better served by further leaning into the whole Christ analogy it pushes. I’m not saying this film needed its own version of the crucifixion and resurrection, but simply a little time showing humanity’s response to Superman and what to do with/about him. Sacrificing ten minutes of action to do so would’ve made for a better movie.

Having said that, the action is the most noteworthy thing about the picture, and what’s on display here is some of the best spectacle you’re likely to see on film. The sheer scale is mindboggling and the ambition is commendable. Man of Steel opens with a visually imaginative (and surprisingly substantive) sequence in Krypton and it ends with a 40-minute throw-down action sequence that is awe-inspiring in its depiction of collateral damage, which a consulting firm recently estimated would result in $700 billion in physical damages, one million injured victims and over 100,000 deaths.

There's a good drinking game to be made based around
product placement in this movie.

The film has been criticized for featuring a Superman that allows such destruction, but, while I thought the action was a bit overlong, I found it to be a refreshingly “realistic” depiction of how a fight between super aliens would play out. That said, the film definitely would’ve worked better if the filmmakers had shown Superman’s sense of horror at what was happening around him. If they had, the climactic moment in the train station would’ve carried a lot more heft. Instead it’s almost a joke.*

*For those counting, that makes two extremely important and emotional moments for the lead character that are totally undermined by the immediate lead up to them.

Then, of course, there’s the way the film has revised the whole approach to Lois Lane. Here, it’s actually believable that Lois (Amy Adams) is a crack investigative journalist, because she’s not depicted as a dummy who doesn’t realize she’s working side-by-side a fellow reporter who looks just like the superhero she spends so much time with. Instead she’s a smart, driven reporter who, after getting her life saved by a super-powered mystery man, begins to methodically trace his tracks and discover the truth.

Once she does, Lois gets three solid scenes with Clark –one where he explains why he doesn’t want her to expose him to the world, one where she interviews him as army officials watch on, and one where she comforts him in a moment of total anguish after the train station climax. They’re all strong moments, but because of how much little interaction they have besides that, the romance angle that gets grafted onto the story seems a giant miscalculation. The film does a good job of showing how she could fall for him, but not vice versa, and so the kiss moment rings false. More restraint would’ve been wise, as the three aforementioned scenes would’ve made strong foundation pieces for romance exploration in a sequel where she (and we) will assumedly learn more about the Clark Kent side of Kal-El.

The film offers what are arguably definitive takes on
Superman, Lois Lane and Jor-El. Zod? Not so much.

There are so many more pluses and minuses in this film that I could go on and on. I understand it’s something necessary with a big film like this, but the record-breaking product placement was a little much for my taste. However, one thing I’ll give the filmmakers – they got the casting right. Cavill brings a physicality to Superman that no other actor has before, while also offering a tremendous amount of confidence and benevolent warmth. It’s a star-making performance, and, although he’s been around for a while, after his work here, I expect a lot of doors will open for him.

Adams, Crowe, Costner, and Christopher Meloni (as a Detective Stabler-like army guy) all provide great work, with Costner being best in show. In fact, given the amount of time spent exploring the motivations of Crowe’s Jor-El, more time with Costner’s Jonathan probably would’ve been welcome for balance sake.  Meanwhile, Zod has a refreshingly complex and relatable motivation for what he’s doing, and they’ve cast a great actor in the role, but the whole thing is brought down a peg by some convoluted business concerning a genetic codex and Shannon’s decision to dial everything up to 11. Like Crowe, Shannon is saddled with a lot of expository dialogue, but unfortunately, he doesn’t come across nearly as well.

Overall, I’m more positive on the film than negative, but I feel like I can’t really judge the thing until the inevitable sequel arrives. If that sequel builds on what’s here and further explorers the notions of how Earth is responding to this guy, the film may seem better in hindsight. But right now Man of Steel seems a collection of good ideas and standout moments enveloped in a half-baked film. B

Changing Up the Formula Proves Problematic for 'The Hangover Part III'

The Hangover Part III misguidedly turns Chow into a lead and becomes a
heist movie.

In the lead up to The Hangover Part III, director Todd Phillips defended the preceding entry in the series to Empire, saying "Yes we do a wake-up and a blackout, but every joke in Hangover II is completely different. My feeling is that it's better [than the first movie]. I think it's human nature that any time people want to try something for a second time, people go to a negative. I think in five or ten year's time, people will come to realize how brilliant Hangover II is." 

Before commenting on the specifics of such a comment, I should mention that I concur with Forbes contributor Scott Mendelson’s assessment that it is refreshing to see a filmmaker stand by his film, as opposed to shitting on it as a way to sell the next one as an improvement.

Having said that, I do believe most of what Phillips says is nonsense. The second movie is not better than the first, and a majority of the jokes are pointedly the same (as shown in this Vulture piece). For that reason, Phillips was lambasted for making a lazy carbon copy of the original, instead of trying to evolve the story and do something different.

The Hangover Part III seems to be a direct answer to that criticism.  Although Doug (Justin Bartha) is left to the side once again, the movie attempts to switch up the formula. The lead trio is not drugged and they do not spend the movie trying to piece together what happened the night before (despite the title, there is no hangover). Instead, the minor role of Chow (Ken Jeong) is beefed up and action and heist elements are grafted onto the story.


Melissa McCarthy lends the film some much needed humor in her few scenes.

All of this proves a massive misstep. As Community has already proven, Jeong is best used in small doses, and yet here, he’s arguably co-lead with Zach Galifianakis. In fact, the first five minutes of the movie are spent with him, and he is the catalyst for the entire plot, which finds our heroes caught in the middle of his feud with a gangster (John Goodman) over $42 million in gold bars.

Making matters worse, the film is rarely funny, occasionally saccharine and often infuriating. Watching Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) attempt to discover what happened during a crazy night with Alan (Galifianakis) as an oddball tagalong is a good time. Watching them constantly being outsmarted by a crazy psychopath like Chow, only to feel sympathy for him even though they know he’s a double-crossing murderer? Not so much.

Having seen Part III, I find myself appreciating the second film more than I originally did. While I wouldn’t go so far as to call it brilliant, it is a funny film, and there is something to be said for the way it unashamedly mimics the first one, while simultaneously escalating the events and self destruction to gonzo, nightmarish heights. It’s a sequel that almost plays like a remake, albeit one with more money and more freedom to go full hog. In that way, it’s sort of like Evil Dead 2.

Meanwhile, outside of a few random bits of awkward inanity from Galifianakis, Part III is a just a limp exercise. It’s telling that the biggest laughs come courtesy of a 90-second credit sequence that offers an intentionally derivative glimpse of a morning after hangover following another night of revelry. Hangover films work better with a hangover. Go figure. D+

"Iron Man 3" Proves a Solid Entry to the Increasingly Popular Iron Man Series

Tony Stark spends a large portion of Iron Man 3 out of the Iron Man suit.

I saw Iron Man 3 a few weeks back and thought it was pretty good. It’s definitely better than the lackluster second entry, but not quite on the level of the original. I’d say it’s about on par with The Avengers, even if it doesn’t have the same inherent scope and nerd value.

My overriding takeaway is that it’s amazing how far the character of Iron Man has come in such a short time. Little more than five years ago, he was a second-rate super hero. Now, he’s headed up four films that have amassed more than $1.5 billion at the domestic box office alone and well over double that number internationally. That draw puts him in pretty elite company, shared only by the likes of Harry Potter, James Bond, Batman, and Darth Vader.

Impressively, it seems Iron Man is only getting more popular, as Iron Man 3 has already netted over a billion dollars worldwide* and is on track to make more money than the first two solo outings combined. At this point, it seems pretty clear that Iron Man resides alongside Batman at the tippy top of the super hero food chain. I guess people prefer their super heroes to be eccentric billionaires with no real discernible powers.

* An interesting addendum to the international success of the film revolves around a modified version for the Chinese market. The tailored cut contains four minutes of extra footage, including a subplot with popular Chinese actors and bizarre product placement for Chinese milk. This article does an extremely thorough job of exploring the gimmick.

Other than that, my thoughts on the film are all over the map and sort of hard to pin down in a traditional review. As such, I thought I’d post a point-counterpoint article on things I liked and disliked about the movie.

(Oh, and, ummm, spoiler warning).

The film successfully deploys a kid sidekick in the middle of the film.

Positive #1: The General Vibe

Shane Black has a very particular cinematic voice, and every minute of this movie projects his Shane Blackiness. Christmas setting, meta-voice over narration, witty wisecracks and repartee – all his staples are here. Black seems to have used this opportunity as a way to send up a number of action movie clichés (the precocious kid side kick and the righteous terrorist, in particular), and it’s just a whole lot of fun watching him do it. 

Also, I definitely got a welcome James Bond vibe from much of the film’s middle section, something that’s further evoked by the familiar beats in the score and the line at the end of the credits – “Iron Man Will Return.” I’m not sure if this was overtly intentional, but Marvel president Kevin Feige is talking up his plan to turn Iron Man into the next James Bond in terms of franchise longevity and the ability to keep passing the mantle to new actors.

Negative #1: Lackluster tie in to the Avenger Initiative

The movie very clearly positions itself as a sequel to The Avengers, as a great deal of Tony Stark’s personal journey revolves around what happened in that film. The man can’t sleep, is experiencing panic attacks, and is feverishly working to create an army of suits because of the possibility of intergalactic threat.

And yet, in no other way does the film even acknowledge how the events of that film have affected the world itself. I know the movie should be judged on its own merits, but when you open up the story like this, it’s hard not to be confused when the film treats Iron Patriot (formerly War Machine) as America’s only defense of terrorism. No mention of Captain America or any agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., despite the fact that a lunatic terrorist is killing people left and right, and the leader of the free world is kidnapped.

I’m not saying other Marvel heroes should’ve been in the movie, because I understand they would take away from more intimate story. I’m just saying a throwaway line or two explaining the absences would’ve gone a long way toward silencing the bullshit alarm.


Despite the inanity of this right here, Gwyneth Paltrow continues to add a

great deal of heart and wit to the Iron Man series.

Positive #2: Concentration on Tony Stark

This series has always been at its most interesting when focusing on Tony Stark, due in large part to the iconic performance of Robert Downey Jr., but here, an extra concentrated effort seems to have been put on echoing the final line from the first film – “I am Iron Man.” Unlike Batman in Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, Iron Man is not a symbol or a role that any man can take on. Tony Stark is Iron Man, and as a testament to this Tony spends a large portion of the film out of his suit, using ingenuity and intelligence to act the hero.

Of course, this exposure also highlights his humanity and vulnerability, an ongoing development that has been well handled as this series has played out. Not only is he in a mature loving relationship with Pepper Potts (something that makes him less immune to the threats around him), but he also is experiencing panic attacks related to traveling through the wormhole at the end of The Avengers.  It’s a nice beat for the character that can often seem a bit too unbeatable (he’s smarter, cooler, and just flat-out better than everybody else).

Negative #2: Convenient Plot Points

Throughout the film’s first half, a great deal of focus is given to Tony’s panic attacks, but once the film starts hurtling toward its conclusion, the whole thing is dropped, which seems like a missed opportunity. I’m thinking something like the moment when Pepper falls to her apparent doom (even though she was obviously going to be as indestructible as all these other Extremis folk), would’ve had more heft if it had been due to another attack.

There’s also the issue of why, if Tony has all of these great suits underneath his mansion, he doesn’t utilize them earlier. I suppose one could argue that until close to the film’s conclusion, they are trapped under the wreckage, but that doesn’t explain why he wouldn’t request their assistance during the assault on his home. But you know what does? Plot requirements. And that kind of sucks.

Iron Man 3 finally brings great action to an Iron Man solo outing.

Positive #3: Awesome Action Scenes

The first two Iron Man movies were largely devoid of great action scenes. Other than the decent raceway assault by Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, there’s not much memorable action in the first two films, probably because so much of the sequences just involved men in iron suits blowing things up or unimaginatively hitting each other.

That’s not the case here. Despite keeping Tony Stark out of his armor for most of the film, Iron Man 3 still manages three distinctly awesome action set pieces – the assault on Stark mansion, the skydiving rescue sequence and the climactic battle.

I know many corners of the Web have been unkind to this last one, but to be honest, I thought it was pretty solid. I didn’t like the silliness of blowing up all the remaining suits (this whole scenario showed how beneficial they can be, so, umm, WTF), and would’ve preferred Aldrich Killian’s death to be of the result of Stark’s very clever (and very well set up) method of throwing his suit on him and self destructing it to the silly and telegraphed Pepper Potts smack down. However, I loved that the sequence played down the importance of the hardware and made it very clear that Stark is the super hero by making each suit so dispensable.

Negative #3: Overreaching Continuity Angle with Rushed Epilogue

Third films often attempt to tie a great deal of elements back into the first movie as a way of indicating “See, you should be impressed, this was all one interconnected story.” This can be successful (The Dark Knight Rises), so-so (Die Hard with a Vengeance), or awful (Spider-Man 3). Hell, it can even be meta (Scream 3).

In all of those examples, the screenwriters tied the main villains from the first movie with those in the threequel. Iron Man 3 doesn’t really do that, but it does attempt to graft that type of thinking onto the film by giving our hero a previous connection with these bad guys, a connection that conveniently took place the same night Tony Stark happened to briefly encounter Yinsen, the man who would go on to help him forge the original Iron Man suit while hostage in a Middle Eastern cave.

Furthermore, it tries to put a nice little bow on the series via a rushed epilogue that explains Tony decided to have surgery to remove the shrapnel from his chest. This last point comes out of nowhere, makes Stark less interesting and renders pointless a great deal of the narrative from parts 1 and 2, both of which strongly indicated this was a medical impossibility. Nevertheless, the film rushes through this plot point as a way to thematically close the series, which isn’t really necessary and sort of works against the story overall.

Ben Kingsley's Mandarin offers a surprising element to the film.

Positive #4: Bad Guys

The greatest stroke of genius in Iron Man 3 is what it opts to do with the Mandarin character. When Ben Kingsley was first cast in the role, many wondered how Marvel would incorporate the character, a genius scientist and martial arts expert with 10 magic rings infused with various powers, into the mostly reality-based world they had created with these Iron Man films. The suggestion was that since Iron Man had now been linked to the more fantastical Thor, the door had been opened to continue down the rabbit hole.

In some ways, that would’ve made sense, as it would’ve built on The Avengers, thus addressing some gripes expressed in negative #1. Despite that, I thought what Black did was fun and fresh, even if it did piss off a number of hard core fans.

I also was quite pleased that the true villains of the piece were not just Iron Man knock offs. Instead, the Extremis villains seemed to evoke Spider Man’s the Lizard. Not entirely original, but at least it’s better than more of the same.

Negative #4: Bad Guys

I know, it seems odd to list the bad guys as a positive and a negative, but that’s just how it is. While, I really enjoyed the Mandarin bit, and was happy to be freed from the formula of iron baddies, Iron Man 3 continues the series’ trend of under whelming villains.

Outside of his excruciatingly over the top performance in the flashback sequences, Guy Pierce does a solid job with Killian, but his efforts don’t hide the fact that he’s just a mediocre compilation of former Iron Man foes. He’s a rich business rival (like Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer) with a cold-blooded thirst for power (like Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane) and a personal vendetta against Tony (like Mickey Rourke’s Vanko).

All of these bad guys were well cast, but none were all that memorable, which is something that does leave a glaring hole in the Iron Man series thus far.  A quick glance at Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy highlights just how much a commanding and memorable bad guy can add to a film, but, excluding The Avengers (where he tussled with Thor’s baddie), Iron Man has dealt with boring, uninteresting adversaries. B+

DiCaprio Impresses in Baz Luhrmann’s Polarizing “The Great Gatsby”

Baz Luhrmann brings his patented style to The Great Gatsby.

Long ago christened the great American novel, The Great Gatbsy has, to some degree, suffered from such a lofty designation. Perhaps due to high expectations, many have walked away unimpressed by the slight nature of the story and unsold on the big ideas placed upon it, often indicating the acclaim seems a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I get this sentiment. There is so much fervor for the text amongst a great deal of scholars that it has become as much a legendary false idol as Jay Gatsby himself. This has led the uninitiated to roll their eyes, which is a shame, because such a chain reaction ultimately dims the beauty of the story’s moving tragedy and elegant prose.

I mention this, because it colors my thoughts on Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, a somewhat problematic and bloated adaptation that overcomes its shortcomings by nailing the plight of the titular character, a man whose overreaching claim to Greatness conceals his true value.

Called a “nothing man from nowhere” by his chief romantic rival, Gatsby is a newly rich man of humble beginnings.  His persona, like his wealth and parties, is extravagant and inauthentic, a sham product conjured from imagination and subterfuge. 

However, underneath the hubbub, Gatsby, like the book that bears his name, is far more than nothing. He is a man of immense passion, resolve and hope on a romantic quest to live out a dream scenario with his lost love. The problem, to paraphrase Fitzgerald, lies in the fact that the idealized fairytale stored up in his heart is just another overdone exaggeration, a self-deluding illusion of colossal vitality. 

Leonardo DiCaprio plays all of this perfectly. Like the books in Gatsby’s library, he’s real, but with uncut pages. The bravado and posh accent increasingly prove themselves to be affectations, and the actor does an excellent job of cutting thorough the mystery and false confidence to show a sad and desperate man who’s achingly real. 

Leonardo DiCaprio owns the role of Jay Gatsby.

Given DiCaprio’s deft work in Shutter Island and Inception, two movies that saw him playing men with their own falsely idealized romances, perhaps his success here shouldn’t be surprising. Ultimately, he offers up the definitive portrait of literature’s most famous dreamer.

As successful as DiCaprio’s performance is, most of the talk surrounding the movie concerns Luhrmann’s stylistic flourishes. When I first heard Luhrmann was hired to tackle this adaptation, I applauded the decision. Although it certainly allowed for the potential of a massive misfire, I thought it could also be a shrewd match of material and director. Given his work on Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann seemed well equipped to handle the roaring 20s excess and even better prepared to tackle the tragic romance. Besides, at the very least, we were going to get something uniquely different from previous attempts to translate the Fitzgerald classic.

Having seen the results of Luhrmann’s effort, I’m very much understanding of what Nick Carraway meant when he said he was “within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled.” At times, what appears onscreen is enthralling. The production design, mis-en-scene and costuming are highlights, and, certain moments from the book are adapted unbelievably well, particularly the New York apartment party scene in which Nick ponders the inexhaustible variety of life.

However, there are other moments, particularly during the first half hour, that just don’t work. For instance, Nick’s whole first trip to the Buchannan home is fraught with overcooked style. Although it’s pulled straight from the books, the depiction of the whipping curtains is silly, as is the synchronized movements of the wait staff and the overzealous and disorienting editing of the dinner sequence. 

The shot composition in this film is pretty rad.

And while I think the 3D is solid and am not bothered by the multitude of anachronisms (most notably the hip hop soundtrack), I dislike the framing device that reveals Nick is in a sanitarium telling this story to a psychologist and later writing it as a sort of therapy. These scenes add up to quite a bit of screen time spent on an unnecessary and hollow subplot, time that would’ve been better utilized in other ways (like adequately translating the relationship between Jordan Baker and Nick).

Outside of DiCaprio, the cast, which includes Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan and Isla Fisher, acquits themselves well enough. Elizabeth Debicki left me with the best impression, but unfortunately her Jordan is totally underutilized in the second half of the film. Meanwhile, Joel Edgerton brings the right amount of hulking pompousness to the role of Tom, and he kills it in his confrontation scene with DiCaprio.

 The Great Gatsby is destined to be a polarizing film, but while I have a few issues with it, I’m inclined to throw my support behind it. Like Gatsby himself, the film is sometimes flashy to a distancing degree, but underneath the pomp there’s a substance to it that makes for an entirely immersive experience.B+

Messy and Even Silly At Times, “Trance” Still Mesmerizes

Vincent Cassel is unsurprisingly good in Trance, and I won't hold the
weird spelling of his character name against him.

After going all prestige with Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours, director Danny Boyle returns to his genre roots with Trance, a kinetic mind-bender that initially seems like a riff on heist films but ultimately establishes itself as a sexual thriller about hypnotherapy, memory suppression and female empowerment.

The film evokes Inception in its exploration of the subconscious and plays like a spiritual cousin of Side Effects (for my review, click here), this year’s other B-movie detour by an Oscar-winning director in which nothing is as it appears to be. However, despite loads of technical audacity, ace acting and undeniable watachability, Trance is mostly a mess of convoluted twists and silliness.

The action kicks off with a crackling monologue about art thievery from Simon (James McAvoy), a seemingly vanilla mid-level security handler at an auction house who orchestrates a daring heist at the behest of a gang headed up by the ruthless Franck (Vincent Cassel). Despite being in cahoots, Simon attempts to thwart Franck, resulting in a blow to the head that leaves him with memory loss, which proves a problem for Franck and his men once they realize Simon had somehow lifted and hidden the painting.

Enter Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), a hypnotherapist who says she can delve into the recesses of Simon’s mind and find the painting, provided Franck cuts her in on the ensuing payday. From there, things get increasingly disorienting as the movie becomes a bonkers fever dream.

To say much more would give away too much of the plot, but I will say that there’s more to Simon than he thinks and more to Elizabeth than she says. Meanwhile, Franck’s in the middle, piecing it all together, while realizing there may be more to him as well (not in the secret agenda/hidden twist kind of way, but rather the “I’m more than what I’ve done” kind of way).  

A fancy looking visual doubles as some character foreshadowing.

That's crafty.

Once all the twists and turns are revealed, some of the seeming plot holes make more sense, while others open up. The most problematic ones revolve around Franck, who conveniently decides to turn to hypnotherapy because the plot needs him too, and does not grow suspicious of Elizabeth until far too late in the game.

Held up to scrutiny, the film is somewhat frustrating, and the climax involves quite a lot of explanation to make sense of it all. Making matters worse are the laughably silly moments interspersed throughout, particularly those revolving around Simon’s predilection for shaved genitalia and a silly denouement built around a video message on a tablet.

Despite these issues, there’s plenty here to like. The three principles are all at the top of their game, which is pretty impressive given just how tricky these roles are. McAvoy stretches in unexpected ways, and Cassel brings just the right amount of danger and vulnerability to his part as he continues to prove he’s one of the more complicated “bad guys” in cinema today.

Meanwhile, Dawson shows what she can do given a meaty role after being relegated to nothing roles for most of her career. Much has been written about how brave her performance is given the amount of skin she bares, but to focus on that would undercut her hypnotic performance, which is simultaneously confident, vulnerable, intelligent, shifty, and smoldering.

It’s also worth reemphasizing that the movie is a complete gas, and Boyle’s direction deserves a great deal of the credit for that. This movie is far from perfect, but Boyle elevates it through a sheer force of talent. Man’s got style to burn, the way he shoots and cuts this thing makes for a mesmerizing, off-kilter experience. B

'42' Hits Heart Strings, But Relies Too Heavily on Violin Strings

What 42 inherently has going for it is a truly amazing story of one man whose emergence into baseball proved crucial to the desegregation and eventual racial integration within baseball and other professional sports. Not to be isolated, this one man’s story served as both a beacon of hope and unforgettable example of that seemingly unattainable “what could be.” It is the type of story that powers itself, practically writing itself.

It is likely that director Brian Helgeland didn’t quite believe in that power or underestimated it to the point of needing or wanting compensation. While the movie has a few good moments – mostly powered by good acting – it suffers from relying too overtly on occasionally cheesy scenes and heavy violin strings.

At one point during the cinematic version of Jackie Robinson’s gradual acceptance as a member of the Brooklyn Dodgers – by his teammates, fans, the league and the rest of the country – star shortstop Pee Wee Reese tries to show support for Robinson in front of his hometown Kentucky fans when the team travels to play the Cincinnati Reds. As Reese wraps his arm around Robinson, boos gradually become more and more audible. Those boos provide a powerful soundtrack, one that Robinson and just about every African-American baseball player who followed in his footsteps had to hear and deal with throughout their careers. However, the boos are quickly replaced by the loud overpowering of violin strings and music meant to represent the Dodgers’ growing acceptance of their star player.

Although Helgeland’s decision is interesting and makes some sense, it wraps too nice of a bow around what, in the long run, was a really a subtle, gradual win for a person who still had many battles to go before he was accepted. And, more importantly, it underestimates just how powerful it is to see two unlikely comrades sharing a moment in an unlikely and difficult time and place.

Chadwick Boseman, right, is pretty good in 42 as Jackie Robinson. Harrison Ford is OK as not-Harrison Ford.

Whereas some of the soundtrack and script decisions seem a little heavy-handed and unearned, the movie is considerably boosted by solid acting, especially in some of the smaller character roles. Chadwick Boseman does a solid job of portraying the revolutionary Robinson, impressively capturing his transition from confident Negro League player to reluctant icon to baseball hero. He handles the job well enough to make one wonder how much better of a job he would have done had he been given more to do. Nicole Beharie, as Jackie’s wife Rachel, does a similarly fine job. Andre Holland, as baseball writer and Robinson’s guide Wendell Smith, does an excellent job of both painting the edges of the Robinson story and also hosting his own mini-integration story as a journalist not allowed in the press box due to the color of his skin and despite his talent.

The true standouts of this film, though, are Christopher Meloni and Alan Tudyk, who take reasonably small roles and hit them out of the park. As Dodgers manager Leo Durocher, Meloni takes his trademark ability to play angry and develops it into a character hardheaded enough to lead a rowdy baseball team but focused enough to motivate his players to embrace racial integration. He develops this hardheaded into a character so likeable that the audience feels a shot in the gut when Durocher gets suspended for having an affair and, thus, can’t help Robinson in his first year on the Dodgers. Tudyk plays the outspokenly racist Ben Chapman, manager of the Philadelphia Phillies, depicted along with the entire city as among the most bigoted in baseball. Tudyk is a chameleon of voice and personality who takes considerable advantage of his assets here by depicting both the power of the prevailing opinion and shocking realization that this manner of thinking is quickly disintegrating, evident when a fellow Dodger walks over to the Phillies’ bench and tells the manager off. Although the character’s racism is over-the-top, Tudyk’s portrayal is not, showing the audience the worst of the worst while still allowing for believability. Character actors Toby Huss as the scout who signs Robinson and Brett Cullen as the manager of the minor league affiliate Montreal Royals also do impressive jobs.

Alan Tudyk, as racist Phillies manager Ben Chapman, is amazing in this movie, as well as everything he has ever been in.

As Branch Rickey, Harrison Ford walks a line between being believable and becoming a cartoon. Although Ford makes some of his actions and decisions seem forced or misplays some of Rickey’s intentions, the greatest success is that the character is decisively not Harrison Ford-esque, lacking the gruff, bullying undertones usually present in most of his roles.

The movie does a pretty good job of showing his teammates’ gradual acceptance of Robinson, often due to his outstanding play and via various methods, including choosing not to be traded, the aforementioned arm-around-neck gesture by Pee Wee Reese (which may or may not have happened) and, in one instance, inviting him to be part of their post-game shower routine.

The film version of this statue is pretty cheesy.

As a baseball fan, I probably would have liked to see more baseball action, possibly more evidence of the defensive prowess he was known for at just about every position he tried. Even his offense shown was considerably one-sided, really only showing home runs and base stealing ability. This could have possibly been done by making some scenes a little shorter. They could have also cut some of the fat, such as a scene where a child curiously observes Robinson on the field and then mimics his dad’s racist comments; it is, without a doubt, a very interesting snapshot of how racism spread but could easily be sacrificed to show us more about the player. However, it is pretty plain that this movie was not made solely for baseball fans, but for all viewers interested in seeing how Robinson became an iconic identity associated with successful racial integration.

Truncated Runtime Hurts 'The Sessions'



One of the best aspects of The Sessions, is the frank approach it takes

to the sex scenes between Helen Hunt and John Hawkes.

Oddly enough, the best compliment and biggest criticism I have for The Sessions are one in the same – it left me wanting more.

The film is based on the true-life sexual awakening of Mark O’Brien (John Hawkes),* a freelance writer and poet unable to move any muscles below his neck and forced to spend most of his days in an iron lung due to contracting Polio at a young age. At 38-years old, Mark realizes he is approaching his sell-by date and so, after getting the blessing of his open-minded priest Father Brendan (William H. Macy), he hires a sex surrogate named Cheryl (Helen Hunt) to help him achieve sexual penetration.

*I had never heard of O’Brien until this movie, but he was the focus of an Oscar Winning documentary (Breathing Lessons: The Life and Work of Mark O’Brien). Furthermore, The Sessions is an adaptation of an article he wrote entitled ‘On Seeing a Sex Surrogate,’ a quick read that fills in many of the particulars on sex surrogacy. For those who are interested, the documentary can be found here, and the article is posted here.

In their first meeting, Cheryl clearly establishes parameters of what is and isn’t going to happen. Mark is paying her to have sex, but she is not a prostitute. That means she doesn’t need the money up front or in cash, and she’s not interested in his return business. To avoid intimacy, she refuses to share personal information and adheres to a six session limit. However, things don’t go as planned, and eventually a connection is forged.

This is the material of a great story, but unfortunately the movie doesn’t fully deliver. The big problem is the abbreviated run-time. Even with credits, the film runs a scant 91 minutes, and, as a result, the conclusion is abrupt, many subplots are left hanging, and a multitude of interesting corners are left unexplored.

Outside of Mark’s personal journey, nearly everything seems rushed and unfinished. It’s a shame really, because every actor in this thing seems plugged in, even peripheral ones like Adam Arkin (as Cheryl’s husband) and Moon Bloodgood (as Mark’s aid).

Obviously that’s a positive, but it also raises the bar, which, given the ultimate scope of the piece, is not a good thing.


Take the Bloodgood character for instance. She’s given two or three scenes with an employee at the hotel where Mark and Cheryl conduct their sessions. They have chemistry, he seems interested, she seems to be playing hard to get, but then it goes nowhere, and you’re left wondering, “What was the point of this subplot?”



William H. Macy is good as an interactive plot device.



And then there’s Father Brendan. Macy brings a great deal of warmth to the part, and he gets one of the best lines in the movie (“I know in my heart that God will give you a free pass on this one”). However, beyond the scene built around that line, we don’t get much in the way of his moral conflict. He’s just a buddy Mark tells all his lewd behavior too – or, more cynically, a plot device that allows the film to eschew voice over narration. The idea that Mark plans to write about the issue does not seem to faze Father Brendan, even though it would surely raise eyebrows among his higher-ups and congregation.

But Cheryl’s development poses the biggest issue. We get hints of maternal issues (her son calls her Cheryl) and marital problems (her husband wants her to convert to Judaism) that just go nowhere, and we’re asked to believe that a woman who has sex for a living and has gone through this process many times, would fall for this guy. He writes a poem sure, but is that all it takes? More scenes would’ve been helpful to contextualize everything, particularly one showing her with another patient.**

**In an interview with the Huffington Post, Cheryl Cohen Green, Mark’s real life surrogate, indicated they did not fall in love as the film suggests. For the record, Mark’s article never implied they did. Given the lack of tangible development, this isn’t exactly surprising. Having said that, I do believe it was a good idea to alter the story for the movie; I just don’t think proper consideration was given to developing it. Also, it’s worth noting that, according to an article on AOL Jobs, Cheryl actually met her husband via sex surrogacy (an element that may have helped add some context to her half of the story).

I understand my assessment is coming across rather negatively, but the truth is this is a quality film with a refreshing, matter-of-fact depiction of sex and two dynamite lead performances. Hawkes conveys a complex combination of humorous wit, anxiety and emotional turmoil with only his face and an expressively high-pitched voice at his disposal, while Hunt delivers a confident portrayal fully deserving of the Oscar nomination that came with it.

Those positives amount to enough for a recommendation, but not enough for the film to live up to its potential. The story probably could’ve benefited from a more stylistic approach, but writer-director Ben Lewin (a Polio survivor who hadn’t received a film credit in nearly a decade before taking on The Sessions) directs with all the punch of  a TV movie.

Ultimately though, the film’s biggest issue is its brevity. Given more room to breathe and develop, The Sessions could’ve been something quite special. As is, it’s a nice character piece with a life-affirming message.