Movie Review: A Shot at Glory

A Shot at Glory (2002) 

Directed by Michael Corrente 

Written by Denis O'Neill 

Starring Robert Duvall, Ally McCoist, Brian Cox, Kristy Mitchell, Cole Hauser, Michael Keaton 

Release Date May 3rd, 2002 

Published August 5th, 2002

Robert Duvall may be the most under-appreciated actor in the business. Despite his awesome resume, Duvall is not offered the roles that go to the actors of his age and class such as Deniro, Eastwood, Pacino and the like. The reason is likely his lack of leading man looks, but what he doesn't have in looks he makes up for with pure acting chops.

Easily one of the best actors going today Duvall still has a hard time getting a movie greenlighted, struggling with the film The Apostle for nearly 20 years. The soccer movie A Shot At Glory is another of Duvall's passion features, co-written and financed by Duvall himself. Though the film isn't as good as The Apostle the film once again showcases Duvall's amazing talent.

A Shot At Glory tells the story of a tiny Scottish soccer team trying to compete with the big boys. Duvall is the teams coach Gordon McLeod, a former player with the major league team The Rangers whom he now feuds with over incidents not fully explained. Michael Keaton is the owner of Duvall's team, Peter Cameron, a brash American who wants to move the tiny team to the bigtime by taking the team and it's players from it's home in Kilknockie, Scotland to Dublin, Ireland. Cameron thinks he can make the team more marketable to the Irish investors by acquiring past-his-prime soccer star Jackie McQuillan, played by real Scottish soccer legend Ally McCoist.

McQuillan is an egocentric jerk, overcoming a drinking problem, but also Gordon's son in law, though Jackie and his wife are separated. Parallel to the main story is that of Gordon's daughter, British stunner Kirsty Mitchell as Kate McQuillan. Gordon doesn't speak to his daughter since she married Jackie. It has little to do with Jackie's being a jerk, though, it is because Gordon is Protestant and Jackie is Catholic and the marriage took place outside of either church. The rivalry of Protestants and Catholics is vicious at times, even resulting in violent feuds that often spill over onto the soccer field.

Cole Hauser rounds out the cast as a rookie American goalie who is pressed into duty as the team surprisingly advances through Scotland's biggest soccer tournament.

No doubt about it A Shot At Glory is a sports movie bound by that genre’s many clichés. The aforementioned Hauser only plays after the starting goalie is injured and, wouldn't you know it, the rookie is forced to play in the two biggest games of the season. As for Gordon, what a shock when he is forced to play his former team, The Rangers, in the big game and face his hated rival Martin Smith (Brian Cox).

Though the film is steeped in sports movie clichés, the soccer scenes are well presented thanks to cinematographer Alex Thomson who makes his living as a soccer cameraman. Thomson knows how to film the action and given the tools of a handheld cameras and super 16 film, Thomson gives the film a realistically gritty look.

Duvall is excellent, his mere presence elevates even the film’s most leaden moments to passably interesting. Saddled with a difficult Scottish accent and some very dull and obvious dialogue, Duvall still manages to be entertaining and engaging. The real surprise though is Scottish soccer star Ally McCoist who really holds his own against Duvall and comes off very natural.

A Shot At Glory almost never got made. Duvall had set the film up with a Hollywood studio with Russell Crowe attached to play the soccer star. Crowe however pulled out at the last minute and Duvall was forced to make the film independently. Nevertheless, Duvall has crafted an above average sport movie that rises above genre convention to be an entertaining little movie.

Movie Review Red

RED (2010)

Directed by Robert Schwentke

Written by Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber

Starring Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox, Morgan Freeman, Karl Urban

Release Date October 15th, 2010

Published October 14th, 2010

The romantic side of Bruce Willis is the side most people tend to ignore. Yet, in movies as diverse as “The Whole Nine Yards,” ``TheFifth Element” and even the “Die Hard” movies, one thing that stands out is Willis's abiding romantic streak. Whether it's love at first sight with Amanda Peet's wannabe assassin in Yards or Milla Jovavich's alien badass in Element or his endless devotion to wife Holly in Die Hard, romance sings within the action hero.

In “Red” Willis finds himself once again seeking romance, this time falling in love with the voice of Mary Louise Parker as his benefits manager at his former gig with the CIA. The voice connection quickly turns into a physical one when their monitored conversations threaten to get them both killed.

Frank Moses (Willis) was once, arguably, the most dangerous man in the world. In his role as a covert CIA Agent, Frank took down dictators and toppled entire governments all the while keeping the Russians at bay long enough for Communism to fall. Today, Frank lives in suburban boredom colored RED, Retired Extremely Dangerous.

Frank's minor pleasures come in his conversations with the woman who handles his retirement pay, Sarah (Parker). They have sparked a flirty chemistry over the phone and now Frank is ready to move things along to an actual physical encounter. These plans are upended when Frank finds and kills trained assassins in his home.

Assuming it is related to his conversations with Sarah he immediately travels to where she is, kidnaps her and the two go on the run. The first stop means recruiting an old friend abandoned and bored in a nursing home, Joe (Morgan Freeman). Then there is a trip to Florida where the terribly paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich) awaits. Finally, there is Victoria (Helen Mirren) , the most dangerous yet well adjusted of this group of RED Agents. 

Why is the CIA, led by Agent Cooper (Karl Urban) out to kill Frank? What does it have to do with Sarah? How big is the conspiracy? Who really cares? You won't care but you really aren't supposed to. The point of Red is not brilliant plotting or complex motivations but rather highly stylized violence and clever line reading, things “Red” has in abundance. 

Malkovich is the scene stealer in “Red” as Marvin Boggs, a former agent who was subjected to more than a decade of daily LSD treatments. His paranoia is matched with terrific intuition and ability for violence and Malkovich plays the wicked good guy with the kind of hammy glee usually reserved for his over the top bad guys. 

Morgan Freeman gets the short shrift as the oldest member of the crew. He has a few good moments, especially when putting the lights out on a guest star that I will leave as a surprise, but sadly his role amounts to little more than a cameo. Better served are Dame Helen Mirren and Bryan Cox who plays a former KGB killer and an important figure in both Frank and Victoria's past. 

Bruce Willis and Mary Louise Parker don't spark the chemistry that Willis had with Amanda Peet or Milla Jovavich but for Willis the romantic action hero there is plenty of fun to be had. Parker seems to be cracking up in every scene and Willis enjoys her cracking up even as he is required to keep a straight face. It's a fun if not quite sexy pairing. Parker brings out the playful side of a character that really is not playful and the laughs this generates are big and satisfying.

Karl Urban rounds out the main cast showing off the same comic panache he brought to his role as Bones McCoy in “Star Trek.” I find Urban to be fascinating in that he can play the ripped up action hero or comic relief with the same energy and surprising wit. Urban is everything modern action heroes like Sam Worthington or Gerard Butler have yet proven to be, constantly interesting. 

”Red” succeeds on the charisma of its stars. The likeability of this group is off the charts and more than enough to distract from the overly familiar and predictable plot. Bruce Willis is so much more interesting than his action hero contemporaries like Stallone or the Governator. The romance of Willis, the way his humanity is reflected by the women he desires, it's a beat that other action heroes can't play. It may be that one element that always sets him apart. It is undoubtedly what sets “Red” apart as some of Willis's best work.

Movie Review: Zodiac

Zodiac (2007) 

Directed by David Fincher

Written by James Vanderbilt

Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards, Brian Cox

Release Date March 3rd, 2007

Published March 2nd, 2007 

Director David Fincher has a childhood connection to the case of the Zodiac killer. Fincher grew up in Marin County just outside San Francisco and rode a school bus for weeks with a police escort after the Zodiac threatened to flatten the tires of a school bus and kill all the children inside. This memory amongst others of that hyper-paranoid time in San Francisco were the impetus for Fincher's involvement in the movie Zodiac starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Mark Ruffalo.

Though some will connect this serial killer film with Fincher's masterpiece of the macabre Seven, Zodiac is a very different animal. A meditative character piece, Zodiac is a masterpiece of observation and dialogue. Working without the shock factors of Seven or his other masterpiece Fight Club, Fincher cultivates an absorbing tale of procedure.

He also crafts his third masterpiece.

In 1968 two teenagers by a lake in northern California were shot to death with seemingly no motive. Then, less than a year later, two more teenagers, this time on a lover's lane, are shot and one dies. After this murder a letter arrives at newspapers across the bay area and a man who would soon come to be called The Zodiac, claimed credit for the murders. Another murder in early 1970, another couple, in which a woman is killed and her male companion survives is claimed by The Zodiac.

This was only the beginning of the case of the Zodiac, a case that would come to grip the San Francisco police department, amongst other northern California law enforcement offices, for more than a decade. Another murder in 1970, the death of a cab driver on the streets of San Francisco, kept the case open in several different counties in northern California.

Based on the prose of cartoonist turned amateur sleuth Robert Graysmith, the movie Zodiac is a studious recreation of the period of the Zodiac killings and the facts as gathered by Graysmith, the police and the reporters who gave their lives to solving the Zodiac case and failed.

The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Graysmith who in the late 60's was the political cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle. His path to becoming obsessed with the Zodiac case began with the killers first letter which included a cypher that captured his attention. As a boy scout Graysmith was taught code breaking. He didn't crack the first cypher but future codes he did break on behalf of the Chronicle's top crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr) who made Graysmith part of the case.

On the other side of the Zodiac case were the cops, especially San Francisco detective Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and his partner Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards). Though they were late to the Zodiac case, they caught what is allegedly the last of the Zodiac's murders, it was Toschi who the Zodiac singled out as a worthy opponent and though the film doesn't speculate, Toschi may have been the reason Zodiac came to San Francisco and changeded his M.O from killing couples to the thrill kill of a cab driver.

The evidence uncovered by Toschi and Armstrong is what leads the police to the prime suspect who, in a scene of chilling resonance, is revealed to be far more average than one might expect from a killer who has managed to toy with police and avoid capture for so long. This is just one of many exceptional scenes in Zodiac that add up to an ending some may find unsatisfying but I found liberating and illuminating.

Why did Robert Graysmith become obsessed with the Zodiac? That is a question that only Graysmith could answer and is not something that Jake Gyllenhaal's oddly compelling performance has time to ponder. Gyllenhaal crafts Graysmith as a nervous oddball character whose compulsive personality finds outlet in the investigation of the Zodiac.

First it's the cyphers which intrigue him. Then an odd sense of what he feels is justice takes him over. Though he doesn't question the police commitment to finding the Zodiac, he is convinced that he can help the investigation and thus begins a strange journey into the midst of the case. A series of red herrings and strong suspects distract him for a time but might have been the ramblings of a conspiracy nut soon become the key to revealing who the Zodiac really was.

Robert Downey Jr. nails every moment of his worn down, drugged out reporter in Zodiac. Robert Avery was the Chronicle crime reporter on the Zodiac case and he too was consumed by it, though in a far more self destructive way. Avery, at first, reveled in taunting the killer in his coverage, even calling him a latent homosexual in one controversial column. Soon he is turning up leads and working around the cops to break the case. Unfortunately, it was the case that broke Avery.

Mark Ruffalo has always been a solid actor but he is invigorated working with David Fincher. Ruffalo's is a lively engaged performance. Energetic, smart and even humorous, his Dave Toschi is such a compelling figure that it is no surprise that he was the template for both Steve McQueen's cop in Bullitt and Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry.

Zodiac is a hypnotic journey. An absorbing police procedural about obsessive characters and the lengths they go in pursuit of their obsession. Even at nearly three hours Zodiac holds you in rapt attention as it unfolds this horrifying tale of a murderer who escapes capture and the men who gave their lives for some semblance closure, even if that closure brought them nowhere close to justice.

Guaranteed to be one of the best films of 2007, Zodiac is the first can't miss movie of the year.

Movie Review The Bourne Supremacy

The Bourne Supremacy (2004) 

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Written by Tony Gilroy

Starring Matt Damon, Brian Cox, Franke Potente, Julia Stiles, Karl Urban, Joan Allen 

Release Date July 23rd, 2004 

Published July 22nd, 2004 

What I have always loved about action movies, or more specifically spy movies, is the idea that while we live our everyday mundane lives, secret forces are out there creating and covering up chaos. Just think of all those times the world has been in peril or (at least the lives of normal civilians like ourselves) and we have never known it. 

We have wandered into city squares unaware that they are teeming with secret agents and surrounded by SWAT team snipers. What about all of those times you have been cut off by some nut in traffic unaware that he is fleeing for his life with the fate of the nation hanging in the balance.  The Bourne Supremacy doesn’t get caught up with saving the world but it does have a few of those moments where everyday civilians unknowingly cross paths with danger -- all of it cleverly staged and playing into a smart, action-packed plot, heavy on spycraft and low on dialogue. 

Matt Damon returns as Jason Bourne the amnesiac hero of 2002’s The Bourne Identity. As we rejoin Jason Bourne, he is hiding out in India with his on the lam girlfriend Marie (Franke Potente) whom he kidnapped and fell in love with in the first film. The couple has an idyllic life of leisure aside from Jason’s occasional flashes of memories that he can’t fully recover. Jason knows he did something horrible but can’t remember what it is.

Not surprisingly, his memory will become important as Jason is drawn back into the spy game by the arrival of an assassin (Karl Urban) who has just framed Jason for murder in Munich, Germany, and has now come to India to tie up his loose ends. Jason doesn’t know about the Munich setup; he assumes the CIA has resumed pursuit of him despite his warning of reprisal.

Joan Allen is Pamela Landy, CIA field director, who stumbles on to Bourne through the assassin’s setup in Munich. Landy was in Munich when two of her CIA squad were killed and the evidence points to Bourne. Searching for Bourne leads her to Bourne’s former boss Ward Abbott (Brian Cox) who has something big to hide. Whether it’s criminal or merely a CIA operation is one of many tantalizing mysteries. From the outset, the only character to trust is Bourne; everyone else is suspect. 

Director Paul Greengrass’s previous film was the visceral pseudo-documentary Bloody Sunday about terrorist strife in Ireland. That film employed a grainy look that dated the film to its 1980s setting. There is no need for such tricks in this film but that does not preclude Greengrass from being innovative with the film’s look. Its color palette, sun-soaked yellows in India, subtle grays and cold exteriors in Europe follow closely the film’s tone. 

The action scenes are where The Bourne Supremacy sets itself apart from other action movies. Especially good is a hand-to-hand fight scene that Greengrass shot with a handheld camera that follows the action much like Michael Mann’s camera in the boxing ring in Ali, the difference being that Mann shot that on Digital and Greengrass does this on film. 

The Bourne Supremacy also has one of the best chase scenes ever. This is on par with John Frankenheimer’s Ronin and William Friedkin’s The French Connection, with Bourne chased by Urban’s unknown assassin and a number of Russian police. Bourne is driving with one arm after being shot and while being chased he must stop the bleeding. And did I mention the car is a stick shift.

The most essential element of The Bourne Supremacy is the performance of Damon. This film, like its progenitor, turns on whether or not Damon is a believable action hero and once again Damon is a revelation. Damon brings an actor’s chops to a role that most actors throw away, hoping the special effects will carry them. He has the serious manner of Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible but with a grittier, more realistic approach.

Though I would like stronger dialogue and the plot could stand to be a little more fleshed out, there is very little to complain about. Screenwriter Tony Gilroy has an efficient writing style reminiscent of David Mamet’s Spartan but with less wit and far fewer four-letter words. It resembles Mamet in efficiency, if not wordiness, both films don't writers are not wasting time. 

The Bourne Supremacy, like The Bourne Identity, is based on a novel by the late Robert Ludlum who has many more Bourne thrillers already on bookshelves guaranteeing more of this smart, efficient spy thriller. Hopefully the next film is as kinetic and inventive as The Bourne Supremacy is; a terrific summer action movie.

Movie Review: Adaptation

Adaptation (2002)

Directed by Spike Jonze

Written by Charlie Kaufman

Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda Swinton, Brian Cox 

Release Date December 6th, 2002 

Published December 6th, 2002 

Originality is a lost art in modern Hollywood. Many people would tell you that everything has been done, and, well, they are right to a point. That is where Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze come in. They take a simple setup and make it original, fresh and funny. Being John Malkovich was a wild, literal, head trip of originality and humor. Now, their new film Adaptation moves the head trip inside the mind of the writer himself. In Adaptation, Kaufman writes himself into his own screenplay and the result is a film unlike anything Hollywood has ever seen.

I spoke before of originality and interestingly enough that is where the film begins. Kaufman, as played by Nicholas Cage, is wondering to himself if has an original thought in his head as he sits at a movie pitch meeting. A studio executive, played by Tilda Swinton, is offering Kaufman the opportunity to adapt the studio's latest acquisition a book called "The Orchid Thief."

Right off the bat this could have been a scene from Robert Altman's The Player with a studio executive spouting off about how this book is going to be the studio's big prestige picture, and, indeed, the book itself sounds like a Hollywood creation. However, "The Orchid Thief" is a real book by a real author and writer for The New Yorker magazine--Susan Orlean. And, in reality, Charlie Kaufman was asked to adapt "The Orchid Thief" for the screen. We are merely in the first scene and already the film is twisting reality in knots.

We flashback from there to Susan Orlean--as played by Meryl Streep--as she researches the story of John Laroche, a real-life orchid hunter played in the film by Chris Cooper, in an Oscar-courting performance. A story in the newspaper about a guy and three Indians arrested in the Florida wetlands for poaching flowers catches Orlean's eye and she is soon in Florida meeting Laroche with the intent of writing about him in The New Yorker. The article became the book and was then snapped up by a movie studio to be made into a film.

Cut back to Charlie, who explains that he doesn't want to make this a Hollywood thing, and wants to write a film that does justice to the book. The book, however, is mostly about orchids and has no real cinematic arc. Charlie has no idea what to write, and his problems will strike a chord with anyone who has ever attempted to write something. Rewards and punishments. Excuses for writing and not writing. How the mind tends to wander off when you know you have to write something but can't. 

As I write this review I'm going on almost four days since I saw the movie; not exactly a good quick turn around. I sit and stare at the computer alternately tapping out my review in my strange hunt and peck typing style that drives my girlfriend up the wall. I write a paragraph and then wonder if my laundry is done. Another sentence and wonder if I should get a bottled water or make soup. Then I realize that I have unconsciously written myself into a review of a movie about a writer who writes himself into his own screenplay. 

Adaptation will do that to you as it twists inside itself and torturously weaves reality and fiction. Kaufman does an amazing mixing job, using real people like Orlean and Laroche and even the cast of his previous film, Being John Malkovich, and then creating a fictional twin brother who acts as his onscreen id.

Cage plays both brothers, both a technical and acting feat pulled off to perfection. Donald Kaufman seems to be the antithesis of everything Charlie stands for. Donald is a lazy layabout with an ease with woman and self image far healthier than it maybe should be. Charlie is both disgusted by Donald and envious of him. They are two sides of the same coin. Donald one day announces that he too is going to be a screenwriter and with the help of a screenwriting coach played by Brian Cox, writes a typical Hollywood schlock thriller and sells it for a million dollars. 

My impression of Donald is that he and Charlie are actually the same person and that Donald allows Charlie to express how easy it would be for him to buy into the Hollywood system. Donald's amazingly bad script is riddled with everything intelligent people despise about modern Hollywood, but, on further examination, the plot mirrors the same dynamic that plays out in Adaptation. I don't want to spoil it. You have to make the connection on your own.

Lost in all the madness onscreen is director Spike Jonze who craftily loses himself behind the camera, putting all the focus on Kaufman. It is Jonze's steadiness that draws this wildly-out-of-control film together. Jonze and Kaufman litter the film with tiny details that will have you going back to see it repeatedly.

My review is finished now I can go eat, but I better check my laundry first. Hey I wonder what's on TV.

Movie Review: Troy

Troy (2004) 

Directed by Wolfgang Peterson

Written by David Benioff

Starring Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger, Brian Cox, Sean Bean, Peter O'Toole

Release Date May 14th, 2004

Published May 13th, 2004 

In this day and age, when you say Homer everyone thinks Simpson. It wasn't always that way. Years ago, colleges turned out erudite intellectuals who quoted the great poet Homer from "The Iliad" or "The Odyssey.” Maybe those people still exist but today more people can quote Homer Simpson than Homer the poet and the new Wolfgang Peterson epic Troy is not likely to change that. This bombastic, outsized blockbuster has the appeal of Brad Pitt and the scope of an age old epic but it lacks the soul of the poet who's work it attempts to revive.

Brad Pitt stars as Achilles, the greatest warrior in history. Though Achilles claims to have no allegiances, he fights for the money of King Agamemnon (Brian Cox). With Achilles’ sword, Agamemnon has conquered several kingdoms and his reach dominates the Greek kingdoms surrounding the Aegean Sea. Save for that of King Priam of Sparta (Peter O'Toole).

It seems that Sparta is unattainable even for someone as powerful as Agamemnon. Even the great king's brother Menelaus (Brendon Gleeson) has acceded that Sparta can't be taken, even going so far as to broker peace with King Priam's sons Hector (Eric Bana) and Paris (Orlando Bloom). The peace accord however is short lived when Paris takes a liking to Menelaus' wife Helen (Diane Kruger) and spirits her away to Sparta.

This development finally gives Agamemnon all the reason he needed to sack the last kingdom that stands in the way of his dominance. However, to take Sparta, a grand feat given Sparta's legendary impregnable walls, Agamemnon must once again call on Achilles to lead his armies. Achilles does not want to fight for Agamemnon no matter what the offer but does finally agree after a visit from his good friend Odysseus (Sean Bean) who promises something more valuable than riches, eternal glory.

That is the setup for massive CGI battles and a great deal of melodramatic speechifying. In all of the film’s nearly three-hour length there are pieces of three different full length movies edited together into Troy and only one of them would be any good. That is the story of Achilles who in the person of Brad Pitt is a charismatic and dangerous presence. Pitt's Achilles is powerful but conflicted and that makes him inherently dramatic. A film about Achilles would be terrific.

The story of Helen and Paris also has the potential as a stand-alone story. The story has love, passion and a great deal of drama. Cut up as it is here to make room for two other parallel stories, it loses impact. Helen is the reason that Sparta is about to be overrun in the greatest war of all time, therefore her importance to Paris needs more time to develop. Why would Paris risk his family and in fact an entire kingdom for her? We never really know. As it is in Troy, the love story comes off as the selfish petulance of a childish boy and his desperate crush.

The final story is the most poorly developed and that is the story of Eric Bana's Hector. It's not the fault of Bana who is a strong presence, nearly the equal of Pitt. Nearly. Hector's story is far more dramatic than what we see here. His conflicts with his father King Priam are given short shrift and Hector's only character traits are heroism. Hector is hardly ever conflicted, he has no great story arc. He begins as a hero and continues through the film as a hero beyond reproach.

In adapting Homer's epic poem, screenwriter David Benioff had to make a number of dramatic sacrifices including some I already mentioned and one that may be the most troublesome sacrifice of the film. In The Iliad, the Gods of Mount Olympus gave the conflict it's context, they provided motivation beyond the grandiose, nation chest-bumping that Agamemnon uses as motivation here. The meddling God's protected Achilles and gave his dramatic ending a bigger payoff.

There are two reasons for the excising of the God's from Troy. First, there just wasn't enough time to fit them in. The film is just too long to add any more characters, especially characters as outsized as the Gods. Secondly, and don't underestimate this one because this may be the real reason, the bad memories of Sir Laurence Olivier's screen chewing menace in Clash Of The Titans. Love or hate Clash, there is no denying the cheeseball nature of all of the scenes involving the Gods.

Director Wolfgang Peterson is a technician as a director. As his budgets have grown his love of technological filmmaking has overcome his sense of story and character. I say that as a criticism but I must also state that as a technician he is a terrific director. Technology however is not what is most appealing about a film. As George Lucas has shown, you can have all of the technology in the world and still not make a movie that engages. Dazzle the eye all day but if you can't reach the heart or mind, you have no movie. Brad Pitt engages both with his tremendous performance but little else in Troy rises to his level. 

Movie Review: The Rookie

The Rookie (2002) 

Directed by John Lee Hancock 

Written by Mike Rich 

Starring Dennis Quaid, Rachel Griffiths, Jay Hernandez, Brian Cox 

Release Date March 29th, 2002

Published March 28th, 2002

Is there any more tired genre than the sports movie?

Many films are bogged down by the conventions of genre but the sports movie is so constricted it's almost pointless. Every sports film ends up a clone of every other sports film. 2001's Hardball was essentially an urban Bad News Bears with a hint of The Mighty Ducks. The 2000 football movie The Replacements was the same movie that was made in 1993 under the name Necessary Roughness, and so on and so on. Examples of this tired genre stretch out for miles and now comes yet another tired sports movie The Rookie starring Dennis Quaid.

In this mostly true story, Dennis Quaid stars as Jim Morris, a small-town science teacher and baseball coach. With his team playing poorly and desperately needing motivation, Morris cuts them a deal. Morris agrees to try out for a major league baseball team if his team makes it to the States. You see, Morris was on the fast track to the majors in his youth but blew out his arm. Now his arm is healthy and throwing harder than ever. Well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you what happens next; after all it is a true story. Even if it weren't a true story do you honestly think the team would lose and the coach not tryout for the majors?

The Rookie is not a bad film. Technically it is well shot and the acting is first rate. I especially loved Rachel Griffith who, while having very little to do in the picture, still manages to create a strong character. In the end though, no matter how proficient the project is it cannot escape the demons of the sports genre, which is more than ripe for parody. Those genre conventions and the film’s corn-pone, family values, Disneyfied universe make for a film that while efficiently made was doomed to failure even before it began because it is so by the numbers. 

Jim Morris's triumph is intended to be inspiring but because it feels like EVERY other sports movie, every other baseball movie, The Rookie is rendered inert. The drama drags along through scenes that feel as if we've seen them in every other movie. The Rookie has a true life story but director John Lee Hancock makes that story feel so like every other sports movie that even this TRUE story feel like just another sports genre movie. Each beat of the story, every character development, and the ultimate triumph all feel unimpressive and forgettable. 

Movie Review: The Ring

The Ring (2002) 

Directed by Gore Verbinski 

Written by Ehren Kruger 

Starring Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson, David Dorfman, Brian Cox, Jane Alexander 

Release Date October 18th, 2002 

Published October 17th, 2002 

With Halloween around the corner, movie fans are making their plans for Halloween movie watching. Most will stick to the classics: Jason, Freddy, and Rocky Horror. Some fans will take a chance on new movies like Ghost Ship and The Ring. Will either of these films become Halloween rituals? We shall wait and see on Ghost Ship. As for The Ring, with its stylishness and mystery, it has a chance at achieving cult status.

The Ring stars Mulholland Drive’s Naomi Watts, an actress used to stylish mystery, as Rachel Keller, a journalist investigating the unexplained death of her niece. Investigators and doctors have no clue what could have killed this normal, healthy 15-year-old girl. What the investigators failed to notice were the mysterious deaths of three of the girl's friends in separate locations, with each of the kids dying at exactly the same time: 10 p.m.

From a friend of her niece, Rachel learns of an urban legend about a videotape. If you watch it you die exactly one week later. A typically skeptical Rachel begins investigating more benign leads, which takes her to a cabin not far from the girls' Seattle home. At the cabin, Rachel stumbles across the tape and watches it for herself. Suddenly the details described in the legend begin to come true; an eerie phone call informs Rachel she has one week to live and images from the tape begin to appear in reality.

Rachel then takes the tape to her ex-husband, Noah (Martin Henderson), who happens to be a video expert. He also watches the tape and is puzzled at his inability to determine its origin. The tape doesn’t have the distinguishing marks of an average tape. Adding to Rachel’s mounting terror is her strangely sullen but intuitive son Aiden (David Dorfman) who accidentally views the tape, making the investigation even more urgent.

We have seen this conceit before. In fact, we saw it earlier this year in Fear Dot Com. In that film, if you viewed the Web site in the title, you would die in three days. In each film, the investigators believe that if they find the source they can stop the killer. However, there are many subtle differences. Fear Dot Com is a poorly lit, slowly plotted, poorly acted, deeply dull film, more obsessed with unusual visuals than with creating a compelling story. The Ring is more stylish, with an occasional arty quality that is notable in the killer video.

The performances by Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson and David Dorfman are all perfectly pitched, with each creating interesting characters that are never merely manipulated by the plot. The film also has a great mystery to it. At first, the killer is unseen and the more the killer stays off screen the more suspense the film builds.

In fact, it isn’t until the killer is revealed that the film loses steam. It’s a shame that as good as most of The Ring is that director Gore Verbinsky can’t resist the false ending. The ending is highly unsatisfying, a shameful Hollywood tease for a sequel in case the film is profitable. Why is it the first ending of a modern horror movie is almost always the better ending? 

The same thing happened in Red Dragon recently, the Silence of the Lambs spinoff. Putting aside the distasteful ending, The Ring isn’t a bad movie. For most of the film, it’s a suspenseful, engaging horror mystery and I recommend it for your Halloween viewing. However, you're better off leaving when you think it should end instead of waiting for the film itself to end.