The Blind Side (2009)

“The Blind Side” was without a doubt the runaway hit of 2009. It came out of nowhere and it would appear that everyone went to go see it, many people saw it twice. Directed by John Lee Hancock, “The Blind Side” is adapted from the book by Michael Lewis. Nominated for a number of Academy Awards including Best Picture. I guess I understood why it was so popular. On the surface it's a feel-good movie that seems to hit all the right notes. I wanted to hate the movie when I saw it. In fact, I was excited to write a bad review of it. While I watched it I couldn't help but like the movie. However, I quickly realized that what I liked about it was actually a veneer. Like the fake town in “Blazing Saddles” it looks good at first glance, but there's not substance, no backbone to it. It's lacking.

The movie follows Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron), a homeless teenager who grew up in the Memphis projects who just happens to be black and huge. Asked by a friend's father to help enroll Michael at the local private Christian school, football coach Cotton (Ray McKinnon) takes one look at the boy and agrees. It doesn't take long for Michael to realize that he doesn't belong there, and he's most certainly not comfortable there. Plus, he's still homeless. Enter Leigh Ann Tuohy (Sandra Bullock), who sees Michael walking home in the rain at night. She tells her husband (Tim McGraw) to pick him up, and they, along with their two kids Collins (Lily Collins) and S.J. (Jae Head) bring Michael home with them, at first just for the night. Eventually it becomes a permanent thing as the Tuohy's adopt Michael.

They hire a tutor (Kathy Bates) to help Michael with his studies, and Mrs. Tuohy even takes over coaching him in football once or twice. Michael turns out to be an excellent football player for the high school and soon everybody likes Michael. Michael eventually gets so good at football that he can pretty much choose wherever he wants to go to college for free. Of course he chooses the Tuohy's alma mater which is also his tutor's alma mater. The only real conflict in this movie comes towards the end when the Tuohy's are investigated for inappropriate recruiting, and for an hour or two Michael wonders if the Tuohy's actually love him or not. Mrs. Tuohy comes back and reassures him they do. Everything is wrapped up nicely and Michael goes to college and is eventually drafted into the NFL.

I get what this movie is trying to be. I mean it IS based on a true story. There really was a young homeless black boy named Michael Oher that was housed and later adopted by a wealthy, Christian white family. All of this happened. However, this movie tells a story that is supposed to be redemptive and give us hope. This is where, after really looking at the movie, I disconnect. Yes, this movie has a happy ending. That does not mean it is redemptive. For a story to be redemptive, there has to be despair.

If the movie is about Michael, then there is only a modicum of despair. Yes, we see that he is homeless, although he doesn't seem unhappy about it, he's not being abused, he's obviously not starving. We also see where he came from and where is mom is living. It was a bad place, and if he had still lived there it would have been a very different life for Michael. That isn't despair. He had already left the projects. However, I do not think this movie is about Michael.

No, this movie is about Leigh Ann Tuohy. In this respect we see absolutely no despair. There was not a single moment where we see Mrs. Tuohy as anything but saintly. There is no real change in Mrs. Tuohy. It's interesting, in the movie there is an exchange between Mrs. Tuohy and one of her society friends where they tell her that she's changing that boys life. To which she, of course responds, “No, he's changed mine.” No he hasn't. From the very beginning she wanted to help him. We never see what she was like before. We never see any change.

A movie where nothing changes and it's only a happy ending is not a redemptive movie. It's a happy movie. We see no real struggle, no despair, no depravity in any of our characters. It would seem, nobody in this movie required redemption, and if that's the case, why watch it. Unfortunately, I think many people will watch this because they feel like by watching it and enjoying it, they're doing something good. In this regard this movie can be dangerous., especially considering the very shallow use of Christianity in the movie.

Again, I enjoyed this movie. It's nearly impossible not to. However, not all that glitters is gold. “The Blind Side” is not gold.

5/10

Gulliver's Travels (2010)

Jonathan Swift was and is still one of the most biting, brilliant, and widely read satirist the English language has ever known.  Gulliver's Travels, widely regarded as Swift's masterpiece, at once satirizes European government, differences in religion, the corruptibility of man, and the battle between ancients and moderns. He does this while maintaining an exciting and incredibly interesting travel-story. Rob Letterman's “Gulliver's Travels” starring Jack Black is a far cry from Swift. So far in fact, I don't remember seeing his name credited in the end credits. I see it there on IMDb although not without clicking past the main page. This should definitely had a different title. This is an incredibly loose adaptation if an adaptation it is.

The story follows Lemuel Gulliver (Black), a slacker 30-something that still works in the mail room of a NYC newspaper. He has a desperate crush on the Travel editor Darcy (Amanda Peet). After he is passed up for a promotion by someone there only a day, Lemuel decides to talk to Darcy and, after lying about his travel experiences takes on an assignment to write about a trip to the Bermuda triangle. Nothing really unexpected happens when he does make it to the triangle, at least nothing unexpected for a movie that includes the Bermuda Triangle. Lemuel and his boat are swept into a huge water cyclone and transported to what appears to be another world. Washing up on the shore he is surprised and slightly terrified to realize he's the prisoner of an army of very tiny people: Lilliputians. Discovering a society like Lilliput is a big deal. Swift's Lemuel was an academic. Black's Lemuel is an idiot. You can imagine what a Lemuel like Jack Black might do in a situation like this. Pretty much what you'd expect is what happens.

I usually write more of a synopsis of the movies that I review. However, I honestly feel like I'm betraying my English major writing any more about the story of this rape of literature. True, there are funny moments in the movie, however they are few and far between. Gulliver's Travels is an excellent story because of the meaning behind the adventures. There is so much that Swift says between the words in his stories that to adequately adapt it into film would require a subtle and intelligent touch, neither of which are apparent in this film.

Whenever I watch a movie based off of a book, I try my very hardest to separate the book from the movie and look at the movie on its own terms. With that in mind, “Gulliver's Travels” is boring, childish, and predictable. The fact that they use such a source as Swift only highlights the childishness. Any kind of smart satirical comment on anything would have been a positive addition to the movie Unless the movie itself is a comment on the direction Hollywood is taking by rummaging through classics both in literature and film, there is little to redeem this movie. I like Jason Segel and Emily Blunt, and I hope this movie does little to hurt their career.

The only hope I have for this movie is that someone might want to read Swift's original after watching it. However, I have little hope for that. Unfortunately it is slightly entertaining, and I wasn't entirely depressed that I had seen it, however, there are a LOT of better movies out there to see. Also, if you want to see a good adaptation of Gulliver, check out the 1996 miniseries starring Ted Danson.

3/10

True Grit (2010)

In American history, the “wild west” era, characterized by gunfights, duels, train robberies and general lawlessness lasted only about twenty years. Twenty years in a nearly 340 year history of America, why is it that we devote so much thought and glamor to the wild west? Why has American cinema from the very beginning produced so many Westerns for our consumption. The truth of the matter is, the wild west was incredibly interesting and undeniably exciting. For twenty years starting a short time after the Civil War, there was little to no law in the West. Honor and bravery only got you so far until some black hat picked you off from atop a hill as you walked into town. There was little that was fair back then. You survived either by being fast and aware, or by sidling up with someone who was. It is in this era that Clint Portis wrote the book “True Grit.” In 1969 it was adapted into a movie starring John Wayne. At the time Wayne said it would be his last movie. He won an Academy Award for, many people believe, his lifetime of unawarded work, instead of his work specifically for “True Grit.” I have not seen that movie. This is a not a review for that movie. This is a review for the relatively new Coen Brother's film based not off of Wayne's “Grit” but directly back to the Portis original source.

The story starts out with our heroine, Mattie Ross (Hattie Steinfeld). She's a determined young lady whose father has recently been murdered. She knows who killed her father, heck the sheriff knows who killed her father: Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). However, there's nobody that will go running after Chaney into Indian territory. Mattie goes looking to hire a marshal to find Chaney and bring him back to hang. She finds a sour, drunk, and trigger happy marshal by the name of Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) who has only one working eye. She's been told he has true grit, so she hires him. Along for the ride is LaBoeuf (pronounced la beef, played by Matt Damon), a cocky and overly loquacious Texas Ranger who often gets under Cogburn's skin. Mattie proves her own determination and grit throughout the journey even though Cogburn is slow to realize it.

Whenever you shoot a Western you're guaranteed at least a few breathtaking landscapes to work with. “True Grit” does not disappoint in this regard. This movie really is beautiful. The score seems to use only one tune throughout. However, this works incredibly well for the movie, and apart from noticing the same tune here and there, it really does not detract from the movie at all.

The trio finally catch up with Chaney, when Mattie, while filling a water pail, accidentally sneaks up on Chaney. She shoots him, but doesn't kill him and he takes her with her to his gang led by another wanted man, Lucky Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper). Cogburn and LaBoeuf split up with LaBoeuf going after Tom and Mattie and Cogburn going after Ned and his gang. I won't give away anymore of the movie. You really should go see it. This is what movies are supposed to be, this movie would have been great 10, 20, or 50 years ago. This movie is an instant classic.

 

There are some people who say that the Academy were too soon in giving Jeff Bridges an Oscar last year for “Crazy Heart.” While I don't think he should get the Oscar this year, I will most certainly not wonder why if he does. This movie is well acted throughout, and there is not a lacking in the entire cast. I was incredibly impressed by the 14 year old newcommer Hattie Steinfeld. She held her own amongst two academy award winners in Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. There are many times in which she steals the entire movie. I hope this isn't the last we see of Steinfeld.

I haven't seen the original movie all the way through. I'm not entirely sure it matters if I have or not. I plan to. All I know is that this movie is incredibly well made. It is pure story telling through and through. 

10/10

127 Hours (2010)

Allow me to begin this review with some of the best advice I can give you: do NOT go rock-climbing and/or mountaineering without telling anyone. That is a BAD idea. Aron Ralston did that nearly 8 years ago, and you all know what happened to him. If you don't, and you're still considering going out to those canyons alone and without telling anyone, do yourself a favor, watch “127 Hours.” Directed by “Slumdog Millionaire”s Danny Boyle and based on Ralston's memoirs, “127 Hours” chronicles the hours leading up to the incident as well as the aftermath and subsequent rescue.

We meet Aron (James Franco) early in the morning as he gets ready to go out for a day of biking, rock climbing and mountaineering. We see him doing everything he should do for a day of strenuous activity out in the sun: packing food and lots of fluids. The one thing that he seemingly can't get his hands on is his pocket knife, something that will obviously prove to be very unfortunate. On his trip he met two young women (Kate Mara and Amber Tamblyn) who were also hiking through Blue John Canyon. He guides them to an underground pool where they spend a good part of the day just hanging out and having fun. It's clear from the beginning that Aron loves adventure, and it would appear from the reactions and attitudes of the two women he befriends, that love of adventure is contagious.

 

After he bids his friends adieu, Aron goes off by himself to continue on his hike. It is here where, while  trying to jump down 20 feet to the canyon floor, Aron dislodges an 800 pound chock stone and falls. The stone also falls and pins Aron's right arm against the side of the canyon at the wrist. At first, Aron tries to pull his arm out, then he tries to move the stone. Obviously none of these work. After a couple days of waiting for rescue, he runs out of water and we see him slowly deteriorate into hallucinations. The hallucinations include a darkly humorous talk-show type interchange between Aron and himself. He knows his mistake was not only putting too much pressure on that chock stone but more importantly not telling anybody where he was going.

The amputation scene is graphic and pretty intense. I would be remiss not to mention the various reports of people fainting and throwing up during screenings of this movie. It was NOT that bad. The editing made it so that you will squirm and jump at the most painful moments. I actually thought that was a brilliant movie. Boyle was able to reflect pain not only through the visuals which audiences have become desensitized to, but through sound. It's a very creative move, that works quite well

Before the amputation Aron begins to hallucinate seeing his entire family. Aplogizing to him he sees a young child that he's never seen before. He realizes that it's his unborn son. This more than anything else gives him the will to cut off his arm with a dull blade. Once detached from the canyon, Aron makes his way out. After meandering through the rest of the canyons he happens upon a Dutch family. The mother and son run ahead and direct the rescue party to where Aron was. The music by Boyle buddy A.R Rahmann is used to great effect at the most emotional of scenes and, I'm not gonna lie the rescue scene brought a tear or two due mostly to the score.

James Franco most certainly carries this movie. Of course, it's just him for the majority of it, and it's definitely a tribute to Franco and Boyle that this movie doesn't fail just on that account. The story is most certainly of the cautionary variety. The little I've read of “Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” Ralston's memoirs, it's clear that Ralston had a history of rash and dangerous decisions. I wouldn't go so far as to say he deserved what happened to him, nobody deserves to have an 800 pound boulder fuse  their arm to a canyon, but it was the epitome of stupid to go out alone without telling anyone where he was. That being said, Aron Ralston never gave up. His will to live and survive was incredible. I hope I have a fraction of his bravery and determination. This story shows that when someone finds something to live for, they will do ANYTHING to survive.

This is a very good movie. It's not for everyone; many will find it boring and slow. Give it a chance and see it for yourself.

7.5/10

The King's Speech (2010)

In a little over a week, the current British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II will have reigned over the United Kingdom for 59 years. For many of us, she's the only British monarch we've ever known. Within the next decade or two we will most likely see a new king take the British throne. In Tom Hooper's critically acclaimed, “The King's Speech,” we take a look at the struggles of Elizabeth's father, King George VI. Born Albert Frederick Arthur George, “Bertie,” as he was called by his wife and those closest to him, had a very severe stuttering problem. In an age of radio, and at a time when his country was about to be thrust into another world conflict, this speech impediment posed a rather large problem for a man who was never meant to be king.

Being born the second son of King George V(Michael Gambon), Albert was never meant to be king. His older brother Edward (Guy Pearce), was a much better speaker. However, less than a year after his father's death, King Edward abdicated the throne to marry the American Wallis Simpson, thus making Albert, King George VI. It didn't seem as though Albert's speech impediment was a national secret. As a royal prince, he had had to make public appearances and speeches, and the movie shows one or two of them. They are painful to watch and listen to. Speech impediments are often some of the most pitiable ailments to me. 

 The story of course focuses on the relationship between Albert(Colin Firth) and Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue(Geoffrey Rush).  Grudgingly brought to Logue's office by his wife, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Helena Bonham Carter), Albert does not believe that Logue holds any real answers. After listening to a recording of himself reciting Hamlet while listening to loud music, he realizes that perhaps Logue's methods can indeed help. Logue decidedly treats Albert just like any other person, even going so far as to calling him by his nickname. As it often happens, Albert's speech impediment while curable also has a psychological foundation which needs to be dealt with. While trying to get at those deeper issues, Lionel comes up with some humorous and apparently effective techniques with which to combat the stuttering. One interesting method concerns the use of many different expletives as a way to focus the speaker. The many uses of the f-word although in a therapeutic context, is the only thing that led to the 'R' rating.

The movie follows Logue's work with Albert up to and through the coronation, and the climax comes when Albert is required to give a radio message to his subjects concerning England's entrance into the second World War. One of the most fascinating features of British government, the King holds no real power and and yet serves as the one uniting figure for the entire kingdom. To have that kind of pressure  while on the brink of war with Germany, there's no question that the speech is very important.

All of his life, Albert lived in the shadow of his older brother. It was not only the speech impediment that got in the way of finding his voice. A king needs to be able to rouse his people to action. History tells us that of course Albert found his voice, and indeed he roused his people to action. England faced nearly daily bombings from Germany during WWII, and their survival and general morale remained intact due, I'm sure in no small way by the leadership of King George VI.

It's true that I'm a sucker for the British monarchy. Recently a string of incredibly well made films about female British monarchs have come out in “Elizabeth”(1998), “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”(2007), “The Young Victoria”(2009), and “The Queen”(2006). All of those movies were excellent in my opinion. This movie both extends this tradition and serves as a uniquely excellent addition to it.

It's actually kind of difficult to write a review about a movie like this without reverting too much to the actual history behind it. The fact is, I'm sure the real story behind this movie is just as impelling as the movie itself.

I think it's very safe to say that this movie is quite possibly the best of 2010. The acting is superb, the story is excellent. There is not much wrong with this movie other than the fact that many will probably find it boring. “The King's Speech,” is about the power of words and of finding ones voice. Colin Firth should win an Oscar for his performance, and the movie should win an Oscar for Best picture. I will be very disappointed if either of them fail to do so. 

10/10