I love going to movies when they so over achieve any expectations that you have going in. The new Kevin James flick, Here Comes The Boom, isn't perfect by any means but it's pretty darn good.
People like James' movies. He has been a fan favorite since his days on King Of Queens. To be fair, there have been some of his movies that I was fond of, and others that sold out to really low level sophomoric humor that I thought were borderline horrible. Boom is for the most part adult, relevant and fun. I really enjoyed this.
It's the story of a 43 year-old middle school teacher Scott, (James). He is incredibly bored with teaching, and is simply punching the clock and mailing it in. Then after a very accomplished music teacher at his school Marty (Henry Winkler) is being phased out by budget cuts, the big hearted Scott decides to take action. He has to raise $48,000 to keep Marty on board. So Scott who was a high school wrestler 25 years ago, decides to become a low level MMA fighter to raise the money and keep Marty. And in the end become an inspiration to his students. Yeah there are holes, and this is not going to be on Masterpiece Theater, or be revered by Robert Osborne. Far fetched? Yeah it is.....so?
This is part Rocky, part Real Steel, part Warrior, and a big part sap. But what on earth is wrong occasionally with a fantasy story that in the end makes you feel good? This is predictable, and yes we've seen this kind of flick before. So? I for one was so pleasantly surprised, I didn't care. This is PG-13 and well deserved, and it does deal with MMA, and there is some fighting violence, but it's alright.
Should be noted, boxing in our society of out, and MMA is in. Young viewers love MMA and this is another in along line of MMA movies on the docket. James is pretty good as the proverbial underdog Scott, and gives a pretty good performance without all the potty humor normally associated with his flicks. Nice supporting cast too with Selma Hayek, Bas Rutten and others. Huge kudos to Charice who plays Malia one of Scott's students who looks to him for guidance as she is trying hard to learn as much from school as possible. She is terrific in this movie. Small role, but very good.
I know, there will be many better movies this year, but I say so what. Understanding this is not Citizen Kane, or Titanic, this is still pretty good.
Here Comes The Boom. I liked it!
Monday, October 15, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Argo
New this week, the new George Clooney/Ben Affleck produced drama Argo, is new in theaters.
Argo is based on a true story from a declassified mission surrounding the Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979. Should be noted, Clooney is not in this movie. This is also a movie that has a higher sense of relevance right now in light of recent events in the Middle East. Many similarities.
For those not around in 1979, during a revolution in Iran in November of 1979, a group of young Iranians took over the American embassy in Tehran and held many Americans hostage for 444 days while the world mostly watched helplessly. President Carter's presidency was torpedoed and sunk by this gripping saga. This movie deals with a secret CIA mission to free 6 Americans who escaped the embassy takeover and took refuge at the house on the Canadian ambassador (with tremendous personal risk to himself and wife) for about 6 months. All the while being hunted down by the Iranians. But never found or captured.
This is the story of the amazingly brave CIA agent "Kevin" (Affleck) and his strange, but brilliant plan to go to Iran and bring them home safely. He convinces the CIA to invent a movie called Argo. He will pose as a Canadian filmmaker, fly to Iran and give the 6 new Canadian identities and fly them out of the country as members of his film crew. It is a story of incredible bravery and cooperation between countries for a common good. And overall this is a very good movie.
Affleck can make really good and really bad movies. And this is a good one. I love his role choices over the past year or two. He is great as this creative, and steely CIA agent, who takes incredible risks to save these people. This movie also boasts a wonderful and perfectly cast ensemble of John Goodman, Alan Sorkin, Bryan Cranston and many others. Argo is exciting, spellbinding and really tense in spots. I always think it's great movie making when you can take a true story, and even though many in the audience know the eventual outcome, and still make it exciting. Very well done in that regard.
But make no mistake, Argo makes its own statement. It tells you the parts of the parts of history that it wants to, and doesn't always fill out its dance card completely. It reluctantly gives credit to the CIA for the mission success because it has to. Because in the end, the CIA did the heavy lifting. Even tough it is a completely shared credit, you can feel Argo would far prefer to give it all to Canada. Argo also feels the need to show that people in America were unjustified in their outward anger in such trying times. As good as much of this is from a movie perspective, you can feel an uncomfortable reluctance on the movie makers part to show America in a positive light.
Argo. So much of this is very good, and exciting. It's always compelling to go back and watch history that is real and relatively current played out, and this is a story worth telling. Hollywood will more than likely think of Argo at Oscar time when the nominations are handed out.
Argo is based on a true story from a declassified mission surrounding the Iranian Hostage crisis of 1979. Should be noted, Clooney is not in this movie. This is also a movie that has a higher sense of relevance right now in light of recent events in the Middle East. Many similarities.
For those not around in 1979, during a revolution in Iran in November of 1979, a group of young Iranians took over the American embassy in Tehran and held many Americans hostage for 444 days while the world mostly watched helplessly. President Carter's presidency was torpedoed and sunk by this gripping saga. This movie deals with a secret CIA mission to free 6 Americans who escaped the embassy takeover and took refuge at the house on the Canadian ambassador (with tremendous personal risk to himself and wife) for about 6 months. All the while being hunted down by the Iranians. But never found or captured.
This is the story of the amazingly brave CIA agent "Kevin" (Affleck) and his strange, but brilliant plan to go to Iran and bring them home safely. He convinces the CIA to invent a movie called Argo. He will pose as a Canadian filmmaker, fly to Iran and give the 6 new Canadian identities and fly them out of the country as members of his film crew. It is a story of incredible bravery and cooperation between countries for a common good. And overall this is a very good movie.
Affleck can make really good and really bad movies. And this is a good one. I love his role choices over the past year or two. He is great as this creative, and steely CIA agent, who takes incredible risks to save these people. This movie also boasts a wonderful and perfectly cast ensemble of John Goodman, Alan Sorkin, Bryan Cranston and many others. Argo is exciting, spellbinding and really tense in spots. I always think it's great movie making when you can take a true story, and even though many in the audience know the eventual outcome, and still make it exciting. Very well done in that regard.
But make no mistake, Argo makes its own statement. It tells you the parts of the parts of history that it wants to, and doesn't always fill out its dance card completely. It reluctantly gives credit to the CIA for the mission success because it has to. Because in the end, the CIA did the heavy lifting. Even tough it is a completely shared credit, you can feel Argo would far prefer to give it all to Canada. Argo also feels the need to show that people in America were unjustified in their outward anger in such trying times. As good as much of this is from a movie perspective, you can feel an uncomfortable reluctance on the movie makers part to show America in a positive light.
Argo. So much of this is very good, and exciting. It's always compelling to go back and watch history that is real and relatively current played out, and this is a story worth telling. Hollywood will more than likely think of Argo at Oscar time when the nominations are handed out.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
LOCAL GOLF - Sunday Morning Golf Review
The Dewsweepers have played golf every Sunday Morning since about March this year, and we have played all kinds of golf courses. Some we liked, some not so much. And there were a few we have really loved to play this year. Manakiki in Willoughby in one to love.
Manakiki is run by the Metroparks now, and sits in a wonderful setting about 20 minutes or so from downtown Cleveland. No matter where you drive in from to play, you will be rewarded with a fabulous golf course in front of you. This was designed in the 1920's by the legendary Donald Ross, and is so well put together you might think you are on tour. This was a PGA tour stop in the 1950's and 1960's.
This was run as a private country club from 1944 to about 1960, and the facilities outside of the golf course show you that. Incredible clubhouse, and pro shop. This is a striking place to simply see, let alone play golf. This is a tight course, with thousands of trees of all kinds. Well thought out holes with old school raised greens on many holes. From the white tees it plays about 6,200 yards actual, but it plays far longer than that because of it's design. It's hard to put into words how great this place really is. You simply must go see it.
We were saddened a bit, because we played this course in about the toughest golf conditions imaginable. It was about 48 degrees, and it rained on us the whole 18 holes. It did stop for about 2 holes on the back only to start again on 18 tee. It was not conditions for scoring well. Course played long with it being wet, and we could hardly hold on to the clubs at times. But once out there, we were not going to leave. It was simply too nice of a course to not finish. We all agreed.
Not really important to give you the play by play on this round of golf. None of us played or scored the way we would have on a nicer weather day. It rained and was pretty raw most of the morning. At times it rained very hard. But truth be told, none of us scored real bad under tough circumstances. I would love to go back and take a nice weather run at this course. I feel it's a course we could really play well. It's not a long course, but very challenging. Length off the tee is not important, but straight is. All greens heavily protected by sand too. There is not much water either. This is a position course. If you play this from the deepm tees, it will be as tough a challenge as you would every want in a pubic course. Play the white tees.
It also might have the most beautiful finishing hole in area. Number 18 is simply breathatking. As is much of the rest of this course. Worth every minute of drive, and every dollar you spend to play. This is a treat, and we can't wait to go back. Next time in the sun, and we will really play this course well, as it sets up well for our games.
Tournament caliber, tended beautifully, and preserved over the decades with thought and skill.
Manakiki. In short, about as good as public golf can get.
Scores
Joe Red - 87
Wynn - 89
Beef - 90
Tex - 107
Manakiki is run by the Metroparks now, and sits in a wonderful setting about 20 minutes or so from downtown Cleveland. No matter where you drive in from to play, you will be rewarded with a fabulous golf course in front of you. This was designed in the 1920's by the legendary Donald Ross, and is so well put together you might think you are on tour. This was a PGA tour stop in the 1950's and 1960's.
This was run as a private country club from 1944 to about 1960, and the facilities outside of the golf course show you that. Incredible clubhouse, and pro shop. This is a striking place to simply see, let alone play golf. This is a tight course, with thousands of trees of all kinds. Well thought out holes with old school raised greens on many holes. From the white tees it plays about 6,200 yards actual, but it plays far longer than that because of it's design. It's hard to put into words how great this place really is. You simply must go see it.
We were saddened a bit, because we played this course in about the toughest golf conditions imaginable. It was about 48 degrees, and it rained on us the whole 18 holes. It did stop for about 2 holes on the back only to start again on 18 tee. It was not conditions for scoring well. Course played long with it being wet, and we could hardly hold on to the clubs at times. But once out there, we were not going to leave. It was simply too nice of a course to not finish. We all agreed.
Not really important to give you the play by play on this round of golf. None of us played or scored the way we would have on a nicer weather day. It rained and was pretty raw most of the morning. At times it rained very hard. But truth be told, none of us scored real bad under tough circumstances. I would love to go back and take a nice weather run at this course. I feel it's a course we could really play well. It's not a long course, but very challenging. Length off the tee is not important, but straight is. All greens heavily protected by sand too. There is not much water either. This is a position course. If you play this from the deepm tees, it will be as tough a challenge as you would every want in a pubic course. Play the white tees.
It also might have the most beautiful finishing hole in area. Number 18 is simply breathatking. As is much of the rest of this course. Worth every minute of drive, and every dollar you spend to play. This is a treat, and we can't wait to go back. Next time in the sun, and we will really play this course well, as it sets up well for our games.
Tournament caliber, tended beautifully, and preserved over the decades with thought and skill.
Manakiki. In short, about as good as public golf can get.
Scores
Joe Red - 87
Wynn - 89
Beef - 90
Tex - 107
MOVIE REVIEW - Pitch Perfect
If you need something to do this weekend, go see the new Anna Kendrick music movie, Pitch Perfect which went wide release this week.
PP is a very fun movie that really speaks effectively to today's young generation, all the while being savvy enough to be very appealing to a slightly older sect too. I have to admit, I walked into this movie with expectations that this was going to be like 20 other "performing" movies before it, and in some small ways it is. But in the end, what this is - is done in extraordinary fashion and is incredibly entertaining.
This is the story of Beca (Kendrick). She is an angry young college student, that would rather be in California writing her remix music tracks than be a college student. Her father is a professor at this college, and he makes her a deal. Stick out one year of school, give it her best shot, and if she still wants to go west he would let her. So she has to join a club and she chooses a competitive all-girl singing group called The Bellas. They sing and perform with no instruments. All vocals.
Of course there is a fair amount of drama with all these young women trying to work together with new ideas meeting the old. The leader of the group wants things as always, while Beca wants to infuse new songs, and ideas into the act. Can they all co-exist?
First off, the singing and performing arrangements are completely original, and simply fantastic. And there is a bunch of it. Many different groups are showcased in this movie. Very entertaining to say the least. But the Achilles heal of these kind of flicks can be the stuff in between the performances. But not here. This is very funny satire and parody of young performing people and the modern college experience in general. There are plenty of really funny moments, and they do take time a create some really interesting characters. Not all of this works. But overall, it's pretty good.
Anna Kendrick is so darn good at virtually everything she is in. Again, she is really fun here, likable and easy to watch. She may have the stuff in the long run to go all the way. She was nominated for an Oscar for Up In The Air 2 years ago, and should have won. She was great in the average 50/50, and is very good in End Of Watch in theaters now as well. She is great here, and shows she can really do it all. The supporting cast is great, and give fine performances of a really snappy script.
Pitch Perfect. This is very good, and certainly worth a watch if you want a fun night at the movies. Fantastic music, and really entertaining.
PP is a very fun movie that really speaks effectively to today's young generation, all the while being savvy enough to be very appealing to a slightly older sect too. I have to admit, I walked into this movie with expectations that this was going to be like 20 other "performing" movies before it, and in some small ways it is. But in the end, what this is - is done in extraordinary fashion and is incredibly entertaining.
This is the story of Beca (Kendrick). She is an angry young college student, that would rather be in California writing her remix music tracks than be a college student. Her father is a professor at this college, and he makes her a deal. Stick out one year of school, give it her best shot, and if she still wants to go west he would let her. So she has to join a club and she chooses a competitive all-girl singing group called The Bellas. They sing and perform with no instruments. All vocals.
Of course there is a fair amount of drama with all these young women trying to work together with new ideas meeting the old. The leader of the group wants things as always, while Beca wants to infuse new songs, and ideas into the act. Can they all co-exist?
First off, the singing and performing arrangements are completely original, and simply fantastic. And there is a bunch of it. Many different groups are showcased in this movie. Very entertaining to say the least. But the Achilles heal of these kind of flicks can be the stuff in between the performances. But not here. This is very funny satire and parody of young performing people and the modern college experience in general. There are plenty of really funny moments, and they do take time a create some really interesting characters. Not all of this works. But overall, it's pretty good.
Anna Kendrick is so darn good at virtually everything she is in. Again, she is really fun here, likable and easy to watch. She may have the stuff in the long run to go all the way. She was nominated for an Oscar for Up In The Air 2 years ago, and should have won. She was great in the average 50/50, and is very good in End Of Watch in theaters now as well. She is great here, and shows she can really do it all. The supporting cast is great, and give fine performances of a really snappy script.
Pitch Perfect. This is very good, and certainly worth a watch if you want a fun night at the movies. Fantastic music, and really entertaining.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Taken 2
Taken was a surprise smash hit from a year or two ago with Liam Neeson as an agent going all out to get his daughter back from being kidnapped. And it worked.
Now, it's Taken 2, with the same cast basically as the first. In movie making, many times good should be left well enough alone from a quality standpoint. But from a financial standpoint it seldom is. Taken 2 is going to pick up where Taken left off, and bring in a ton of cash...and that's good. But to say this is as good as the original is a close call, but probably comes up a bit short.
In this installment, our favorite OCD former government against Bryan (Neeson), is still divorced form his beautiful wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). His daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) is now a blossoming teen in America after her dad rescued her from sex slave terrorists in Taken. In this story, Bryan takes a freelance security job in Istanbul. After his job is finished, Kim and Lenore (who is separated from her new husband) show up in Istanbul for a family reunion/vacation.
Trouble is, the father of the main terrorist who Bryan killed in Taken is seeking revenge. So he kidnaps Bryan and Lenore, and wants to re-kidnap Kim. He wants to kill Bryan and Lenore slowly while making Kim a sex slave for the lowest common denominator while they watch. So Bryan and Lenore are taken, while Kim eludes capture. Can Bryan somehow save the day again?
The great thing about the original Taken was that behind the action and the violence what it was, was a dad going after his daughter that was in trouble. Identifiable on many levels. It played on our emotions that dads protect their little girls, and that was huge for the original. In Taken 2, there is far more emphasis on action, and this time his love for his former wife, and daughter. Yeah it works, but not quite like the first movie. The obvious question for this movie is, "why on earth would you be in a part of the world that there is possibly so much danger for you and family again?" Fair question. But that's the story.
Many things about the two movies are parallel, so in the end its probably a draw. But the original had that signature scene that I feel propelled it to a higher ground with viewers. Who didn't love the phone call scene when he gets the terrorists on the phone, and says the "particular skill set" line and vows to kill them? It was without question the scene that took Taken to a hit movie, and it was not an action scene at all. This movie does not have that signature emotional scene. And that is glaring. I was waiting for the new signature scene that never really comes. Oh, there is an attempt at movies end, but it's too late. What it does have is tons of violence, action, and slick car chase scenes that are done well. But in the end it lobs Taken 2 into a pile with 50 other movies. The forgot the "separator" factor that Taken had.
Neeson again is good as our middle aged hero, Janssen has a larger role here and Grace is growing up nicely as an actress and gets a major role here and is pretty darn good. Taken 2 also is as tidy as Taken, and doesn't wear out its welcome at 90 minutes. That is a big part of its success. There is only so much story and they know it. Plus, it does leave you wanting more.
Taken 2. There is nothing really wrong with it, it's just not as emotional as Taken. But in the end it's pretty good night out.
Now, it's Taken 2, with the same cast basically as the first. In movie making, many times good should be left well enough alone from a quality standpoint. But from a financial standpoint it seldom is. Taken 2 is going to pick up where Taken left off, and bring in a ton of cash...and that's good. But to say this is as good as the original is a close call, but probably comes up a bit short.
In this installment, our favorite OCD former government against Bryan (Neeson), is still divorced form his beautiful wife Lenore (Famke Janssen). His daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) is now a blossoming teen in America after her dad rescued her from sex slave terrorists in Taken. In this story, Bryan takes a freelance security job in Istanbul. After his job is finished, Kim and Lenore (who is separated from her new husband) show up in Istanbul for a family reunion/vacation.
Trouble is, the father of the main terrorist who Bryan killed in Taken is seeking revenge. So he kidnaps Bryan and Lenore, and wants to re-kidnap Kim. He wants to kill Bryan and Lenore slowly while making Kim a sex slave for the lowest common denominator while they watch. So Bryan and Lenore are taken, while Kim eludes capture. Can Bryan somehow save the day again?
The great thing about the original Taken was that behind the action and the violence what it was, was a dad going after his daughter that was in trouble. Identifiable on many levels. It played on our emotions that dads protect their little girls, and that was huge for the original. In Taken 2, there is far more emphasis on action, and this time his love for his former wife, and daughter. Yeah it works, but not quite like the first movie. The obvious question for this movie is, "why on earth would you be in a part of the world that there is possibly so much danger for you and family again?" Fair question. But that's the story.
Many things about the two movies are parallel, so in the end its probably a draw. But the original had that signature scene that I feel propelled it to a higher ground with viewers. Who didn't love the phone call scene when he gets the terrorists on the phone, and says the "particular skill set" line and vows to kill them? It was without question the scene that took Taken to a hit movie, and it was not an action scene at all. This movie does not have that signature emotional scene. And that is glaring. I was waiting for the new signature scene that never really comes. Oh, there is an attempt at movies end, but it's too late. What it does have is tons of violence, action, and slick car chase scenes that are done well. But in the end it lobs Taken 2 into a pile with 50 other movies. The forgot the "separator" factor that Taken had.
Neeson again is good as our middle aged hero, Janssen has a larger role here and Grace is growing up nicely as an actress and gets a major role here and is pretty darn good. Taken 2 also is as tidy as Taken, and doesn't wear out its welcome at 90 minutes. That is a big part of its success. There is only so much story and they know it. Plus, it does leave you wanting more.
Taken 2. There is nothing really wrong with it, it's just not as emotional as Taken. But in the end it's pretty good night out.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Looper
This week the new Sci-Fi thriller Looper is out with a nice cast and overall a good story.
Looper stars Joseph Gordon Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and a solid supporting cast. This is for the most part well done with a strong emphasis on story and performances as opposed to special effects. And that generally gives way to better movie making.
Looper is set in 2044, and once again a very grim picture of our future in this country takes center stage. Looper takes place in Kansas, in what you are guessing is either a new gigantic city, or Kansas City, Kansas all grown up. Physical time travel has been invented and is strictly outlawed. The only people still using time travel is organized crime 30 years in the future (2074). Since disposing a body is virtually impossible because of technology, they send back people they want killed to 2044, and "Loopers" are assassins that kill and dispose bodies in 2044.
Meet Joe (Levitt). He is a Looper and is making his way through the world making a good living. Until the person that is sent back to him is...him, 30 years from now. (Willis). He can't kill himself, so the older him escapes and that can have huge ramifications of the future. The future him has seen the future and knows that there is a young boy in 2044 that will grow up and dominate the word with powers no one can imagine. He is out to kill the boy. In the meantime, 2044 Joe is trying to survive the mob who is now out to get him because of his failure to kill himself, and to save the boy and maybe, just maybe alter the future.
Looper has a few problems that can't be overlooked. First, is is way too long. This would be so much better if they would have chopped it down some, and eliminated some draggy parts. And as interesting as the story is, they don't really develop a great villain that you really hate, (Jeff Daniels). He is the head of the mob in 2044, that was sent back from 2074 to oversee the Loopers. But it's not his fault. Some bad writing gets in the way of this story line.
But Looper does have a nice story, and a few twists and turns that make it very enjoyable. It also stays on its path and doesn't let ancillary story lines clog it up. Levitt is OK here, Willis gets a role that is far better for him that anything he's had in a while and it was good to see him act again. Emily Blunt is great as the mother of the little boy targeted by the Loopers. She sheds her British accent and goes mid-western and is very effective as a desperate mother trying to raise and save her little boy.
Looper. Not perfect, but few are. But except for being entirely too long, this is pretty good.
Looper stars Joseph Gordon Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt and a solid supporting cast. This is for the most part well done with a strong emphasis on story and performances as opposed to special effects. And that generally gives way to better movie making.
Looper is set in 2044, and once again a very grim picture of our future in this country takes center stage. Looper takes place in Kansas, in what you are guessing is either a new gigantic city, or Kansas City, Kansas all grown up. Physical time travel has been invented and is strictly outlawed. The only people still using time travel is organized crime 30 years in the future (2074). Since disposing a body is virtually impossible because of technology, they send back people they want killed to 2044, and "Loopers" are assassins that kill and dispose bodies in 2044.
Meet Joe (Levitt). He is a Looper and is making his way through the world making a good living. Until the person that is sent back to him is...him, 30 years from now. (Willis). He can't kill himself, so the older him escapes and that can have huge ramifications of the future. The future him has seen the future and knows that there is a young boy in 2044 that will grow up and dominate the word with powers no one can imagine. He is out to kill the boy. In the meantime, 2044 Joe is trying to survive the mob who is now out to get him because of his failure to kill himself, and to save the boy and maybe, just maybe alter the future.
Looper has a few problems that can't be overlooked. First, is is way too long. This would be so much better if they would have chopped it down some, and eliminated some draggy parts. And as interesting as the story is, they don't really develop a great villain that you really hate, (Jeff Daniels). He is the head of the mob in 2044, that was sent back from 2074 to oversee the Loopers. But it's not his fault. Some bad writing gets in the way of this story line.
But Looper does have a nice story, and a few twists and turns that make it very enjoyable. It also stays on its path and doesn't let ancillary story lines clog it up. Levitt is OK here, Willis gets a role that is far better for him that anything he's had in a while and it was good to see him act again. Emily Blunt is great as the mother of the little boy targeted by the Loopers. She sheds her British accent and goes mid-western and is very effective as a desperate mother trying to raise and save her little boy.
Looper. Not perfect, but few are. But except for being entirely too long, this is pretty good.
Monday, October 1, 2012
MOVIE REVIEW - Won't Back Down
Here comes the new education drama, Won't Back Down new this week. And that tremendous thud you just heard is the bottom falling out of this movie.
Where to start? This ill-advised film is supposedly "based on actual events." How gutless, and cowardly to begin with. What does that actually mean? It obviously is not true because they would say it is. If this is a few snippets borrowed from here and there, then shame on you. That's my guess.
It's a story of a young, impoverished young mother Jamie (Maggie Gyllanhaal) and her young daughter who live in Pittsburgh. Her daughter is dyslexic and is having a terrible time in the second grade with a non-caring teacher. So as Jamie tries to fix the situation she runs into road blocks all along the way. So she learns about a little known Pennsylvania law that allows in certain situations for parents to take over the school, and run it the way they want. - What?
Jamie then recruits the help of a veteran teacher Nona (Viola Davis). Her son is also having trouble in school, and she decides to go on this school takeover venture with Jamie. Nona tries to get more teachers on board, but they will have to drop out of the teachers union and go it alone and give up pensions and benefits. Jamie goes out and brings more parents on board and the movement swells. Can they do it? Can they run a school better than the state? That's Won't Back Down.
I will say this. This is a story that could be worth telling in its raw form. Education is an emotional issue for many families and parents. No quarrel there. And this could have been taken, and done in many different ways. They chose the worst way imaginable.
First the script is so amazingly terrible it's completely laughable. Story lines, situations, and dialogue that is so awful and insulting it's tough to sit still for. Characters that are shallow, predictable, and so overdone nothing can save them. My heart goes out to Gyllanhaal to a degree. I'm sure she was hoping this was her Erin Brockovitch role. Complete miscalculation. Her lead character is awful. They wrote words that came out of her mouth that are ridiculous. Plus, she looks like she is trying so hard to be really powerful and good, she ends up being a parody of herself. She could be lamponed very well by Saturday Night Live on this. She will go on to make better movies, but she is awful here, and it's only partly her fault. The rest? Just as bad.
What this turns out to be is an education bashing, union bashing lecture with characters on both sides speaking like they are testifying in front of Congress rather than starring in a movie. And you don't care one iota about one person in this movie. For some reason, Holly Hunter, and Rosie Perez came along for this downhill derailed ride, and they add nothing. Although no one could. This is one silly scene after another.
Few can deny that the education system on our country needs work, and can do better in all avenues. But this story is just putrid. If you want to make a movie that can make a difference, get a good script, a more powerful leading actress, and make it so we can bite into it. And for heavens sake, let's go all story and don't try to sell us on "inspired by actual events". Find us a true story, or make it a piece of total fiction. But don't try to B.S. us. What they want you to think is that this really happened. When most are guessing - it did not.
Won't Back Down. Awful - simply awful. Could be one of the worst movies of the year.
Where to start? This ill-advised film is supposedly "based on actual events." How gutless, and cowardly to begin with. What does that actually mean? It obviously is not true because they would say it is. If this is a few snippets borrowed from here and there, then shame on you. That's my guess.
It's a story of a young, impoverished young mother Jamie (Maggie Gyllanhaal) and her young daughter who live in Pittsburgh. Her daughter is dyslexic and is having a terrible time in the second grade with a non-caring teacher. So as Jamie tries to fix the situation she runs into road blocks all along the way. So she learns about a little known Pennsylvania law that allows in certain situations for parents to take over the school, and run it the way they want. - What?
Jamie then recruits the help of a veteran teacher Nona (Viola Davis). Her son is also having trouble in school, and she decides to go on this school takeover venture with Jamie. Nona tries to get more teachers on board, but they will have to drop out of the teachers union and go it alone and give up pensions and benefits. Jamie goes out and brings more parents on board and the movement swells. Can they do it? Can they run a school better than the state? That's Won't Back Down.
I will say this. This is a story that could be worth telling in its raw form. Education is an emotional issue for many families and parents. No quarrel there. And this could have been taken, and done in many different ways. They chose the worst way imaginable.
First the script is so amazingly terrible it's completely laughable. Story lines, situations, and dialogue that is so awful and insulting it's tough to sit still for. Characters that are shallow, predictable, and so overdone nothing can save them. My heart goes out to Gyllanhaal to a degree. I'm sure she was hoping this was her Erin Brockovitch role. Complete miscalculation. Her lead character is awful. They wrote words that came out of her mouth that are ridiculous. Plus, she looks like she is trying so hard to be really powerful and good, she ends up being a parody of herself. She could be lamponed very well by Saturday Night Live on this. She will go on to make better movies, but she is awful here, and it's only partly her fault. The rest? Just as bad.
What this turns out to be is an education bashing, union bashing lecture with characters on both sides speaking like they are testifying in front of Congress rather than starring in a movie. And you don't care one iota about one person in this movie. For some reason, Holly Hunter, and Rosie Perez came along for this downhill derailed ride, and they add nothing. Although no one could. This is one silly scene after another.
Few can deny that the education system on our country needs work, and can do better in all avenues. But this story is just putrid. If you want to make a movie that can make a difference, get a good script, a more powerful leading actress, and make it so we can bite into it. And for heavens sake, let's go all story and don't try to sell us on "inspired by actual events". Find us a true story, or make it a piece of total fiction. But don't try to B.S. us. What they want you to think is that this really happened. When most are guessing - it did not.
Won't Back Down. Awful - simply awful. Could be one of the worst movies of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
