Holiday Reviews

Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie's flash-bang adaptation of Arthur Canan Doyle famous character offers some enjoyment in a few well staged action sequences and a great comedic performance by Robert Downey Jr. as the title character, as well as Jude Law as a more thuggish Dr. Watson. However, you have to try to get over a convoluted plot, an uninteresting villain, a bland love interest, and Ritchie's over-the-top direction that brings the film to a screeching halt in too many places. With all that, I can't quite say that you should seek out this film, but give it some time when it comes on video, then you might have a good time. The only real reason to recommend this film is for Downey Jr. and, to a lesser extent, Law. The rest of the cast, as good as Rachel McAdams and Mark Strong are, feel wasted under Ritchie's misplaced direction and Hans Zimmer's unimpressive score. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Crazy Heart

A lot of people have described this as the country music version of The Wrestler, and there are a lot of plot points that borrow heavily from that film. Jeff Bridges has the role of Bad Blake, a singer who was on top at one point but is now playing second rate venues. There's also a budding love interest with a reporter (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and glimpses of a fellow musician (Colin Farrell) who was a protégé of Blake and took off financially while Blake was left behind. Even though all of this sounds familiar, it all comes together to make a truly great film. The center of it all is Bridges's performance, which engulfs a lot of warmth and passion and creates a character that succeeds at every emotional point. Gyllenhaal, Farrell and a brief appearance by Robert Duvall are well played and writer/director Scott Cooper creates a film that feels genuine, energizing and completely enjoyable. Bridges delivers a career best performance for one of the best films of the year. **** / ****; GRADE: A

Nine

Being Oscar season, it is yet again time for another movie musical based on a popular Broadway play that itself was based on a famous, non-musical film. This one's source material was inspired by Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, one of the best films ever made. This musical adaptation, sadly is not, as it tells the uninteresting tale of a famous Italian director named Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) balancing shooting his next film with his messed up personal life and the many different women in it, which include a fashion magazine writer (Kate Hudson), his wife (Marion Cotillard), his mistress (Penélope Cruz), his costume designer (Judi Dench), his muse (Nicole Kidman) and his mother (Sophia Loren). All of them collide in a film that is a complete mess. Rob Marshall, who directed the Best Picture winner Chicago, directs this material just about the same, but the problem is that the material is dull which leads way to a showcase of poorly staged musical bits against overwrought, melodramatic Broadway showtunes; each musical number feels like a participation in excess, offering very little to the characters and drowning the movie in its own style. The only good things to point out are the quirky new song "Cinema Italiano", Dion Bebee's cinematography, and Cotillard's performance, the only performer who strikes any emotional resonance. Truly one of the most disappointing films of the year, and one that squalors its reputation from the talented cast and crew. ** / ****; GRADE: C

It's Complicated

If you saw Nancy Meyer's previous films like Something's Gotta Give and The Holiday, then you'll know the pace this film operates and come out enjoying it at the end. The love triangle plot is nothing new, only this time it is transported to the middle aged community as Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin), who has remarried to a younger wife, start up an affair almost a decade after their divorce. The other complication is that Jane's architect, Adam (Steve Martin) is also having feelings for Jane. In all aspects, it is Streep that makes this sitcom material work, and her abilities as an actress continue to show what a great talent she is and incapable of giving a bad performance. Baldwin and Martin are also quite funny in their roles, and there are also some good supporting turns by the children of Jake and Jane, even though they are written kind of one note. The big exception is John Krasinski in a role that usually goes to the family's best gay friend but here is awarded to the son-in-law, and he scores some good laughs in the film. Meyers's direction is a little off at some points, and the pace isn't always feeling right for a film that come close to overstaying its welcome. But in the end, it's a nice, fun and light piece of entertainment that is sure to please the crowd that has already been flocking to these types of films. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Reviews: Avatar & Me and Orson Welles

Blue Moon

So the wait is finally over. After months, and quite honestly what felt like years, of buzz and teases, we are finally treated to the real thing. I went in with a heavy amount of suspicion and skepticism, as I generally do, with this film. Anything that is this talked about should have the thought in the back of your mind that it's going not going to live up to your expectations. And as the lights dimmed, and I had my Urkel style 3D glasses wrapped around my head, I was just laying back ready for anything to show up on the gigantic IMAX screen. What I was treated to was Dances with Wolves meets FernGully. However, do not be mistaken by that comparison. I fell in love with this film for offering an abundant visual spectacle against a story that is both parts exhilarating and tedious.

It's one hundred and fifty years into the future, and Earth is going through an implied energy crisis. The solution is to mine a precious mineral out of a distant moon called Pandora. The problem is that the natives, twelve foot, blue creatures called the Na'vi, aren't willing to give up their home without a fight. A private corporation uses some military men to do the dirty work, leading the pack with Col. Quaritch (Stephen Lang). On the diplomatic side is Sigourney Weaver and her "Avatar" program, which uses lab grown Na'vi bodies to link up to the human mind. Sam Worthington is paraplegic marine Jake Sully whose deceased twin brother was a part of the Avatar program. This allows him to use the Avatar successfully. What happens from here is a budding romance between Jake on one native named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) and a final battle between the Na'vi and the military forces.

James Cameron is a man that seems incapable of making a bad film. However, he's gotten a bad rap, justly I'm afraid, for his tardiness on delivering a new narrative film after the mega success of Titanic twelve years ago. But here he reminds us why he's such a celebrated filmmaker. Cameron's eye as a director is one that is rich and visually stimulating, and he constantly fills the frame with a wealth of interesting images. Cameron is a man who knows how to tell an interesting story and let his characters help guide the story among the exceedingly excellent visual effects.

Still, I would have to say that the premise of Cameron's script is better than the actual execution. The film is peppered with corny dialogue and the final battle carries on for quite a while. This has been an issue with all of Cameron's scripts, and his invention and imagination as a director is sometimes undermined by his shallowness as a writer. However, this isn't to say that the script is bad; in fact, there are many moments in which the story and premise offer interesting paths to take. It's in the execution of the dialogue and the overindulgence in some of the set pieces that gets in the way of it becoming a perfect film.

Worthington has been popping up here and there for a while, and he was undoubtedly the best thing in Terminator: Salvation. Here he presents another performance that embodies that everyman quality that is essential for an action movie. Worthington is slowly becoming a household name, and his performance is one that is easy to become involved in the story. Other players like Weaver, Saldana, Lang, Joel Moore as a fellow Avatar compatriot, and Laz Alonso as a high ranking Avatar warrior are also good additions to the cast, though a few like Giovanni Ribisi as the weaselly corporate big head is a little off. But then, this isn't a film to see for the acting.

But, there is an element to the acting that is worth seeing. The greatest mark the film has to offer is the performance capture used to its fullest advantage. All the emotional markings on a face, both grand and minute, are perfectly captured here. I think this is where Zemeckis and his company wants to go in his films, and even though I like his films, there shy in extreme comparison to what is achieved here. You feel these computer generated characters in the same way you would respond to a live action one, and as the film goes on (and on, and on), you forget you're watching a CG creation. That is a miraculous gift a film can bestow on an audience.

Some of the scripts flaws do prevent it from being a truly great film, but there's enough here to offer a great time at the show. The visual spectacle alone makes this a film worth seeing, but there is also enough in the story and acting that keeps one in the seats at all times. I wasn't sure exactly what to expect before I walked in, but after I walked out, I knew what I had seen was fantastic, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this was a marvelous film from a genius in the medium. Congratulations Mr. Cameron, just don't take another twelve year break for us to get another reminder of that genius. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-

Acting Out

I've talked a lot about whether or not a single good performance is enough to recommend an entire film. This comes up in many films, mostly comedies. Though some recent examples have included The Reader and The Road. Both of those movies had powerhouse performances from their leads, but it ultimately wasn't enough to recommend the film as a whole. This is another film that features one great performance. However, there's also enough here within the rest of the ensemble and the execution of the film to find a very enjoyable movie.

Zac Efron, most known to tweeners everywhere as the headliner of the High School Musical franchise, plays Richard Samuels, an ambitious high school senior in 1937 New York with dreams of fame, fortune and acting. While downtown, he crosses path with a theatre company putting on a modernist retelling of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and the man directing the play as well as starring as Brutus is a young Orson Welles (Christian McKay), a good four years before he became a huge success with the release of the now classic Citizen Kane. Welles is an egotistical maniac, but extremely brilliant, and the entire company tiptoes around his erratic behavior. Samueles also has a budding romance with the Welles's chief assistant Sonja (Claire Danes).

The main reason to see this film is because of McKay. It's a daunting task trying to take on a role of someone as known as Welles, and McKay does a perfect job. He captures the voice and look of Welles, but he doesn't simply do an imitation. He makes Welles an actual character, not just a dramatic set piece in the background. McKay puts in an incredible amount of passion and energy, to the point where it actually feels like your watching the famous actor/director on the screen once again. He gives us as Orson Welles that we've always remembered, and it's a commanding performance deserving of all its acclaim.

The rest of the cast is good, though nowhere near the level of greatness that McKay offers. Efron is trying to breakout of his trap in the Disney musicals, and he does show enough charm and likability to be taken seriously as an actor. Although, if he wants many good notices in the future, it would be nice to have him get roles that don't shoehorn in unnecessary musical numbers, as is done here, particularly when Efron's popstar voice doesn't gel well with the '30s atmosphere. Danes is all smiles and charms, and she gives another well done performance here.

Director Richard Linklater and writers Holly and Vincent Palmo perfectly create a world in that feels genuine to the time period, but there are times when the story feels like it meanders, and the goal at the end of the picture doesn't feel like its that important. The execution of the play is fascinating, but it doesn't feel like there's much value there. The whole film has a lot of whimsy and charm, but there isn't much beyond the surface. The story isn't much and the only thing that's here is pretty much here is a group of individuals trying to put on a play that never reaches the sense of importance or greatness that the film is telling us. Still, it's a trip that is enjoyable pretty much all the way through.

The film's far from perfect, but there's still plenty to enjoy in this film. The cast is able to carry the premise, and while the story isn't always on task, the atmosphere still plants you in a carefree world that feels genuine. Add all that to the miraculous performance by Christian McKay, who deserves an Oscar nomination, and you've got a film that mines plenty of praise to warrant a recommendation. I don't think this would be a great film without McKay, but it's a pretty good one with him. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Commentary: 2009 Chicago Film Critics Nominations

A few days ago, the Chicago Film Critics Association named their nominations for the 2009 awards. Now, after this group gave so much love to The Dark Knight last year, I was so elated that I did a commentary and predictions on that race as well. In the end, I didn't know my Chicago critics as well as I thought I did. But since commentary on the Golden Globes and SAG Awards have been done to death, I'll take an in-depth look on the home front.

Best Picture

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

A Serious Man

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

In the past years, this group has chosen films like Sideways, Crash, The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and WALL*E as the top winners, sometimes making this category a difficult one to predict. Sometimes Chicago goes with the rest of the pact, and sometimes they decide to be an individual. Because Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker have been the favorites so far, I'm going to venture they're going to chose between the two of them. My guess is the latter. The mentions for A Serious Man and Where the Wild Things Are make excellent mentions, I don't think they'll have much traction.

Predicted winner: The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: Up in the Air

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Joel Coen, Ethan Coen - A Serious Man

Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Jason Reitman - Up in the Air

Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds

The second consecutive year in which the Best Director and Picture nominees are five for five here. With that, I'm going to give the edge to frontrunner Bigelow. Although, the Coens and Tarantino have been shown love here before, but I actually think the upset here will be Jonze, considering Wild Things's great showing, and it would be great if that ended up happening.

Predicted Winner: Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker

Possible Upset: Spike Jonze - Where the Wild Things Are

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

George Clooney - Up in the Air

Matt Damon - The Informant!

Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker

Michael Stuhlbarg - A Serious Man

The absence of Morgan Freeman and Colin Firth make this a little bit more interesting, the this is still a race between the two that are also guaranteed nominations. I'm pretty confident that either Bridges or Clooney will end up taking it here, but considering Crazy Heart has only had an advanced screening, it's difficult for me to fairly judge. As of now, I'm going to say Bridges, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clooney ends up the winner here. Also, the Stuhlbarg mention is kinda nice.

Predicted Winner: Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart

Possible Upset: George Clooney - Up in the Air

Best Actress

Abbie Cornish - Bright Star

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Maya Rudolph - Away We Go

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia

So glad about the mentions for Cornish and Rudolph, the latter in particular. These are two strong performances that deserved more attention than they got. That said, I don't see this group's pick being very different from the rest of the groups out there, so I'm going ahead with Mulligan. Maybe Sidibe might take it, but she's got the Breakthrough award going for her already.

Predicted winner: Carey Mulligan - An Education

Possible Upset: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Best Supporting Actor

Peter Capaldi - In the Loop

Woody Harrelson - The Messenger

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones

Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

I love, love LOVE the nomination for Peter Capaldi. In the Loop was the year's best comedy, and much of that is because of Capaldi's shark like performance. I also like the mention for Christian McKay, who looks really great in his movie as well. I think it is pretty much confirmed that Harrelson will get a nomination, which is a little nice since all this buzz started with the NBR nomination. Needless to say, we have another year of Best Supporting Actor with four place holders to make way for the big winner.

Predicted winner: Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds

Possible Upset: Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Best Supporting Actress

Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Anna Kendrick - Up in the Air

Mo'Nique - Precious

Julianne Moore - A Single Man

Natalie Portman - Brothers

The one mention for Brothers should have gone to either Tobey Maguire or Bailee Madison. Portman is good, but the other two are incredible. Other than that, it's a pretty tame list featuring the usual suspects. Look for Mo'Nique to take another one.

Predicted Winner: Mo'Nique - Precious

Possible Upset: Vera Farmiga - Up in the Air

Best Original Screenplay

Away We Go

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

A Serious Man

Up

Away We Go is a nice surprise, and about the only one here. Now, it would make sense to choose The Hurt Locker, but this is going to be my bold prediction against the film. I will actually call it for A Serious Man, only because it seems that some Chicago critics have complained about The Hurt Locker's script. However, if it did win, I wouldn't be surprised.

Predicted Winner: A Serious Man

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Adapted Screenplay

An Education

In the Loop

The Informant!

Up in the Air

Where the Wild Things Are

Again, another great mention for In the Loop and Where the Wild Things Are. While I think both of them could have good possibilities of pulling off an upset, I really don't see either taking it away from Reitman's script. Chicago has shown time and time again they love this guy, and they'll reward him.

Predicted Winner: Up in the Air

Possible Upset: Where the Wild Things Are

Best Documentary Feature

Anvil! The Story of Anvil

Capitalism: A Love Story

The Cove

Food, Inc.

Tyson

Predicted Winner: The Cove

Possible Upset: Capitalism: A Love Story

Best Foreign Film

Broken Embraces

Red Cliff

Sin Nombre

Summer Hours

The White Ribbon

Predicted Winner: Sin Nombre

Possible Upset: The White Ribbon

Best Animated Feature

Coraline

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Ponyo

The Princess and the Frog

Up

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Coraline

Best Cinematography

Avatar

Bright Star

The Hurt Locker

Inglourious Basterds

Where the Wild Things Are

Predicted Winner: Where the Wild Things Are

Possible Upset: The Hurt Locker

Best Original Score

Avatar

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Informant!

Up

Where the Wild Things Are

Predicted Winner: Up

Possible Upset: Where the Wild Things Are

Most Promising Performer

Sharlto Copley - District 9

Christian McKay - Me and Orson Welles

Carey Mulligan - An Education

Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Predicted Winner: Gabourey Sidibe - Precious

Possible Upset: Max Records - Where the Wild Things Are

Most Promising Filmmaker

Neill Blomkamp - District 9

Scott Cooper - Crazy Heart

Carey Fukunaga - Sin Nombre

Duncan Jones - Moon

Marc Webb - (500) Days of Summer

Predicted Winner: Neill Blomkamp - District 9

Possible Upset: Duncan Jones - Moon

The winners will be announced Monday. Let's see how close I am.

Review: Invictus

Hardball

Again, we have another film that the National Board of Review just devoured. While it didn’t claim the top Best Picture prize like Up in the Air did, it still managed to nab a shared Best Actor prize for Morgan Freeman as well as Best Director for Clint Eastwood. Now, this group is a big fan of Eastwood. Last year, this group gave him the Best Actor award for Gran Torino, and the year before he got Best Picture for Letters from Iwo Jima. I very much agreed with the latter, and violently disagreed with the former. Still, this group and I have that much in common when it comes to Mr. Eastwood: we both have a lot of respect for the guy. Still, we have another disagreement about a single film. They loved this one; I did not.

The film starts with Freeman’s Nelson Mandela and his recent release from a twenty-seven year prison sentence. Now he is the newly elected president of South Africa and is trying to accomplish the daunting task of uniting a country divided against the whites and the blacks. Mandela’s idea for unification is in the form of the country’s rugby team and their success of at the World Cup. Matt Damon is Francois Pienaar, the team’s captain who is pushing his team to an underdog victory.

The main reason, for me, why the film never quite gets to the point it needs to be is that the entire emotional crux of the film is based upon a game that I know nothing to very little about. The issue with this is that because most of the film's stakes rely on this premise, it's difficult to get into the emotional journey. Whenever something happens during the game, the only emotional cue to go on is the faces of the characters. After a while, you realize that movie is telling you how to feel instead of actually getting that emotional genuinely through the story. That emotional blockage goes away a little at the end with the climatic sports finale, but that is only because the end is relying on the many underdog/sport movie cliches.

My ignorance about rugby is an issue, but it's not an issue of the filmmaking. However, that's not the only problem the film presents. Anthony Peckham's script sidelines Mandela in his own movie, and turns what started out as an intriguing look at South African politics and the task of Mandela's challenges into a standard sports movie where the underdog triumphs in the end. The power of Mandela feels muted by the sports premise, and it is another misstep that causes the story to have a less emotional impact. It isn't a terribly written film (Gran Torino was), but it is one that doesn't feel like it has the right story in mind.

However, I will say that Eastwood shows us once again his versatility as a director. His approach is never flamboyant or flashy; it is stripped-down and grounded. His matter-of-fact way of directing is one that is seamless within any story, and there are even times when Eastwood allows us to become invested in either the sport scenes or the quiet emotional ones, like when the team visits the prison that held Mandela for almost thirty years. Though, I still don't think Eastwood has found effective use for his son Scott just yet, particularly when he gives him the character of the one who scored the winning goal for the team. Eastwood seems to have taken more time and effort with this film, and I am grateful for it.

Freeman is another actor that I have a lot of respect for, but I can't help but feel as if most of his roles now no longer require much stretch. It feels like the case here, but there are moments when you can see the good actor in Freeman coming out. The downfall is that his character doesn't feel like the center of this film. His screentime is the greatest, but the impact of the man is never really felt because of the story. Freeman gives a "good enough" performance as Mandela. The same goes to Damon, who most of the time treks through a harsh accent and shallow character. The only one here that really shines is Adjoa Andoh, who plays Mandela's chief secretary. She brings the right amount of energy and emotion to an ensemble that usually plays on one key.

There are a lot of things to admire in this film. I think Eastwood still shows that he's got a great eye behind the camera and allows you to somewhat get into the film. The performances for the most part are solid, though never mindblowing. There's also good work from Eastwood's regular cinematographer Tom Stern, and an upbeat score from son Kyle and Michael Stevens. But the film never finds the emotional ground needed to be a completely fulfilled movie. It's a great deal better than Eastwood's last film, but not quite there to be called one of his best. I guess this is just one more thing I disagree with the NBR with. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Reviews: Up in the Air & Brothers

Layover Fights

Every year, there is always one film out there that seems to have almost universal appeal from critics and awards groups that I just can't fully get on board with. That's not to say that I don't like these films, but only that I don't believe them to be the cinema changing masterpieces that they are made out to be. For instance, last year's Slumdog Millionaire was a very well made film that won awards left and right, but I did not proclaim it the best the year had to offer. There's already plenty that this film and that one have in common, including taking the National Board of Review's Best Picture award. Like the other film, I don't think this one is the absolute best of 2009. Still, it is a well put together piece of entertainment that is quite difficult to dislike.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a cool and slick worker for a downsizing company that loans him out to different places to deliver the news of firings to the employees. Along the way, two major developments cross his path. One is that he is forced to take on newcommer Natalie (Anna Kendrick) under his wing, who has big ideas about revolutionizing the company with computer based firing but little knowledge about the intimate one-on-one touches in dealing with people directly. The other one is a complicated romantic situation with fellow frequent flyer Alex (Vera Farmiga).

As I said, this is a well crafted piece of entertainment that certainly shows the eye of a maturing filmmaker. This is only Jason Reitman's third feature film, following Thank You For Smoking and Juno, for which he never received much of the credit that instead went all to Diablo Cody. All three films seem to take rather dire situations and creates an endearing spin on them. Here, Reitman is able to take a depressing, ripped-from-the-headline premise and makes it funny and charming. He zips us around from place to place, never letting the pace get too muddled and presenting quite a keen eye as to what it takes to keep up with this story.

However, the story presents a bit of a problem. The script, co-written by Reitman and Sheldon Turner, based on the book by Walter Kim, seems divided as to which story it feels is more interesting. There's a big divide between the sentimental love story featuring a man afraid of commitment wanting to come around and the one about the analog player coming to terms in a digital world. The film can't decide which one is better, so it tries to take the best of both worlds and smushes them together. The downside to that is that the film is not able to develop one story enough to feel mature enough to be complete. What ends up happening is that the story tends to meander a bit and feels unfocused. Still, the script is still witty and insightful, even when it isn't sure which one it wants to be.

Clooney seems to embody every character he has played up until this point, and it showcases what I pretty much have thought since the beginning: Clooney is quite a limited actor. However, his lack in range is forgiven when he is able to play a character that augments his personality, which shines a realistic and credible light. Clooney gets that here, and while to an extent I think it's a same extension of what he's been doing before, he still shows that he does it quite well. Farmiga, on the other hand, is always given one new character after another, and it's nice to see her shine in such a role that allows her to be a mix of humorous and mysterious. Kendrick does play her role well, but I couldn't help but feel as if her character doesn't serve much use than to push Bingham to his next emotional cue. She plays it well, but it's a role with not much purpose. Other bit players like Jason Bateman, J.K. Simmons, Zach Galifinakis and Danny McBride offer a little bit of smile in their limited roles as well.

I'm not going to jump and say this is the best film of the year (an honor I still hold to Precious at the moment), but I will say I was thoroughly entertained. The performances are all pretty good, and Reitman's direction keeps the film at a nice pace, even though the jokes only land in square spots in the plot that is divided in its attention. I do believe Reitman's films are getting better and better as they go along, and maybe one day I will agree on the film that everyone seems to love that eludes my extreme praise. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Brothers at Harms

Over the past couple of years, we've seen plenty of films dealing with the current war on terror, with many of them focused pretty much on Iraq. Some of them have been mild successes (Stop-Loss, Lions for Lambs), but most have been critical duds and box office disasters. The reason why these films keep failing is because many of them are centered on one political point and not paying much attention to the acting and the characters. This film steers clear of politics, but that isn't the only change in mind it has. This fight moves from Iraq to Afghanistan, rather fitting given the coincidental announcement of the US's surging involvement. This is also one that finds a lot of rich characters to drive an execution that is nowhere near flawless.

A remake of the 2004 Danish film Brødre, the brothers of the title are Sam (Tobey Magurie) and Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaa). Tommy is the black sheep in the family, recently released from jail after a bank robbery and attending the last meal at Sam's home before he is shipped off for a tour in Afghanistan. While there, his helicopter goes down, and the army declares him dead. To help the grieving family, Tommy tries to shape up by proving himself to his tough Marine father (Sam Shepard) and being an impromptu father figure in the home of Sam's wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and her two daughters. Then, the family discovers that Sam survived his ordeal, and he returns home a very changed and disturbed man.

Jim Sheridan is a director who seems most comfortable with intimate family dramas that deal with melodramatic circumstances. In those moments, that is where he seems to find the right amount of emotions to build up, and the interactions between the characters feel quite genuine and real. However, when the film jumps from the quiet family moments at home to the events that happen to Sam under captivity, the film comes to a halt and the emotions are flat. It would have made the film much better if David Benniof's script cut out those moments because they never feel like they gel with the rest of the film. Having that out of the film would give more mystery to Sam's psychosis and would have made the emotional climax at the end that more powerful. Sheridan does what he can with those war scenes, but they are obviously not his strong suit.

Of the three leads, this film obviously belongs to Maguire. He's an actor that has been given dramatic work outside of the Spider-Man franchise, such as other great turns in Seabiscuit and The Cider House Rules, but he's never been given characters outside the mousy and sheepish qualities they usually posses. Here, Maguire is finally given a character that offers quite the amount of depth and grand emotion. It's a performance that constantly demands much from him, and no matter what the key, Maguire delivers it in strides. Gyllenhaal does well in this role, but I think he's applied himself to much more charm and emotion is other roles and doesn't present the greatest foil to Sam. Portman does give her character enough feeling for the audience to sympathize with her, and she does well in her role. Supporting turns from Shepard and Mare Winningham are quite endearing, but one is a true scene stealer. Bailee Madison plays the oldest daughter, and it is quite amazing how much she is able to pull you into an emotional center not quite seen in child actors. It isn't flashy or contrived; it is real, grounded and credible in a way that has a difficult time reaching adult actors, let alone children.

This is a far from perfect film, as I think the pacing to the film is always jilted by the war scenes and not every emotional peak reaches the destination that is required, along with some odd musical cues from Thomas Newman's score. But the powerful performances save it from drowning, in particular the remarkable turns from Tobey Magurie and little Bailee Madison. We may very well get an onslaught of new modern war films that look into the war in Afghanistan. If we do, then I'd say they have a pretty good starting point here. *** / ****; GRADE: B