Ryan here and this week I’ll be taking a look at the Julia Roberts/Clive Owen vehicle, Duplicity (PG-13). In the film Roberts and Owen star as a couple of ex-spies who are now employed at competing multi-conglomerate corporations. Upon the revealing of a new groundbreaking product, Roberts and Owen mastermind a plan to scam the payoff for themselves. Rounding out the cast is Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti.
Duplicity is directed by Tony Gilroy and I was a big fan of his directorial debut, Michael Clayton. I thought it was one of the better films of the past several years. Duplicity is a a slight departure from “Clayton.” Duplicity is a thriller but it’s more of a light-hearted thriller somewhat in the vein of Stanley Donen’s classic film, Charade. Overall Duplicity is not on the same level of Michael Clayton (or Charade for that matter) but it’s not a bad film. It’s a slightly above average film--and for the most part that’s quite acceptable at this time of year. As most moviegoers are aware the spring time is not when the studios role out their best material.
Gilroy's is a fan of non-linear storytelling and it served him well with “Clayton.” But with Duplicity the results are mixed. Initially the flashbacks that are developed in the narrative do add to the second-guessing of the plot, which Gilory is trying to establish. After all the movie is called Duplicity so I understand the need to keep the audience guessing. Unfortunately the film comes to its conclusion through a flashback that detracts from the pull of the story. It would have been acceptable if the clues would have led to this particular climax but when looking back on the film there's not much there that one could have pieced together to figure out exactly what was going on. The final “gotcha” moment completes the story but not in a fulfilling way. But overall Gilory's pacing of the story does suceed in amping the tension to an otherwise dull concept.
Another strength that Gilory has is the ability to bring out solid performances by his main players. Much of what makes Duplicity a watchable film are the performances by Roberts and Owen. Both of their roles are roles that demand a certain amount of charm and screen presence and they both deliver sexy alluring performances. They have good chemistry together and that allows them to continually play off of each other to the degree that the audience is not sure whether to trust their relationship. That conflict is necessary in a movie like this.
Also adding to the film are the performances by Giamatti and Wilkinson. They don't have a lot of screen time and their characters are more stereotypes than fleshed out roles but they give solid performances. I guess that shouldn't be to surprising considering that they almost always deliver solid work but it is always a joy seeing them on screen especially when they can purposely “ham” it up.
In essence Duplicity is a pretty good film. It is geared for adults and as an adult feature it succeeds more than fails. Final grade: B-.
MLB pitcher Curt Schilling announced his retirement earlier in the week. (And don't even get me started on how much time ESPN devoted to this as opposed to how much time they spent on Maddux's retirement).
But anyway...the debate with Schilling is whether he is Hall of Fame worthy.
And to be honest...I've been on the fence (which as I've said before is not a good sign). But after doing some research...I would vote no. And here's one reason why.
Let's do a little exercise here...
Pitcher A...
innings pitched: 3,130 career win-loss: 204-150 (.576 winning %) career ERA: 3.48
Won one career Cy-Young.
post season innings pitched: 132 post season win-loss: 8-3 post season ERA: 2.59
Won NLCS, World Series & ALCS MVP
Here's pitcher B...
innings pitched: 3,261 career win-loss: 216-146 (.597 winning %) career ERA: 3.46
Never won a Cy-Young
post season innings pitched: 133 post season win-loss: 11-2 post season ERA: 2.23
Won NLCS & World Series MVP
Now if you looked at these pitchers what would one conclude? That basically pitcher A & B are very similar...almost the same. Interestingly enough pitcher A only survived on the hall of fame ballot for two years...never getting more than 11.2% of the vote.
Who's who...pitcher A is Orel Hershiser and pitcher B is Curt Schilling.
I'm not sure how one reconciles the difference. Granted Schilling did have more good to-great years (roughly 9-5) but the bottom line is that there's not much cumulative difference between them, other than the fact that Schilling played for the Red Sox...and ESPN loves the Red Sox...so in effect we are going to be hearing this debate for years. And don't under estimate playing on the Red Sox. Jim Rice made the cut this year and that was highly questionable.
Because to me...one can only take the post season success so far. Look at David Cone...he won 5 World Series rings...was 8-3 in the post season...plus he won a Cy Young award and had a higher career winning percentage (194 to 126--.606) than Schilling. But what' s the big difference between Cone and Schilling's candidacy...oh yeah...Schilling had the bloody sock game.
I'm not taking anything away from Schilling's post season success...because it's remarkable but I don't think it puts him over the hump in terms of getting in the hall. His body of work...his cumulative numbers during the regular season falls short.
To me Schilling is in that class of pitchers like Cone, Hershiser...and maybe even Dave Stewert, Jack Morris, Dwight Gooden and Kevin Brown. These are pitchers who had solid careers...and some of them even had enormous post season success (like Cone, Gibson and Hershisher)...but that doesn't mean they are hall worthy.
The problem with Schilling is consistency. He just wasn't consistently good to great for an extended amount of time...and that's big for me and determining one's chances for gaining admittance. One just can't have flashes of brilliance...it has to be sustained.
This week I'll be looking at the romantic comedy, I Love You, Man ( R). In the film Paul Rudd stars as a recently engaged man who doesn't happen to have any close male buddies. In search of a best man for his wedding Rudd crosses the paths with the eccentric character played by Jason Segal. Rashida Jones, Jamie Pressely, John Favreau and Andy Samburg costar in the film.
I Love You, Man is an enjoyable romantic comedy. This isn't a Judd Apatow production but it definitely shows his influence. The movie is a balanced meshing of the crude (language-wise) with the sincere. The movie lacks being consistently funny but there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments. Overall the film is quite entertaining and will satisfy moviegoers of both genders. Yes, this is a good date film. It's not quite on the same level as last spring's romantic comedy hit, Forgetting Sarah Marshall but it's definitely one of the better films playing at local movie theaters.
In a lot of ways the movie is more “bromantic comedy” than romantic comedy. The film is about the Rudd and Jones character getting married but more-to-the point the film's focus is on Rudd and Segal's budding friendship. Some moviegoers might be turned off by a film that actually showcases two dudes forming a lasting friendship but don't be. I say this a lot about movies that I think are good—and it's simply that—I Love You Man works. It succeeds at being a humorous and at times a genuine romantic comedy. The ingredients in the film come to a fruition and produce a winning film.
There's no doubt that much of the film's success comes from the cast. Entertainment Weekly recently proclaimed Paul Rudd to be “the most lovable movie star on the planet”—and it's hard to argue that point. My respect for Rudd has increased steadily over the years. He's not the funniest comedic actor. He's not the most charismatic leading man but he is the most likable—I don't think there's any question about that. It doesn't matter how good or bad a film is. Rudd always enhances it. It's good to see him getting more leading parts because it allows him to more thoroughly demonstrate his everyman charm. The chemistry between him and Jones and him and Segal ground the film in plausible reality. Speaking of Segal, he continues to show that he can be a movie star as well as a TV star. He has an “interesting” screen presence in this movie but for the most part he succeeds in bringing to life a character that could have just been a caricature. This is Rashida Jones's first big break in a major motion picture and she definitely has the look and skill to establish a successful film career. Also stealing every scene they are in are Jamie Pressly and John Favreau. They play the stereotypical married couple that hates each other but their scenes are extremely funny.
I Love You, Man doesn't really suffer from any glaring weaknesses. What might hurt the film is what expectations people might have going into it. The movie is somewhere in between chick flick romantic comedies and rated-R Apatow romantic comedies. But the bottom line is that male and female moviegoers will both enjoy the film. I Love You, Man is a solid spring flick.
It's that time of year where everyone fills out their brackets for the NCAA tournament. I don't think there's any question that the NCAA tournament is the best sporting event out there. I love filling out the brackets and watching the games. The suspense from day to day and week to week is unparalleled in the sporting world.
But it does stink when one's team (in this case--Indiana) is not in the field. Hence filling out the bracket just isn't quite as fun when The Hoosiers aren't playing. Even in years when it was a stretch for them to make the final four...I always held out hope for them to make a run. So consequently it is not quite as fullfilling filling out the bracket when one's favorite team is absent.
For what it is worth...I've got Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh and Gonzaga in the Final Four...with Memphis winning. I'm not to excited are confident in these predictions. I mean I have Memphis winning...how great is that?
The time of year also breeds another phenomenon...that of other brackets and tournaments for random things. For those that might be disillusioned with the NCAA bracket there are several alternatives.
If music is your thing...here's a classic rock bracket. My final four was Baba O'Reilly, Born to Run, All Along the Watchtower and A Day in the Life. Born to Run topped A Day in the Life in the finals...tough match up though. Although the seeding in this tournament defies logic...Turn the Page a #2 seed...Hotel California, Bohemian Rhapsody and Back in Black were #1 seeds (Stairway to Heaven was the other #1 seed...I can accept that...but I don't get most of the other ones).
Here's another one that I came across...it's the Tournament of Bad...put together by 670 The Score out of Chicago. It's a pretty funny bracket. My final four was Octomon, Rod Blagojevich, Dane Cook and heartburn. Dane Cook was victorious over Octomon. (In your face heartburn).
I'm sure there's more out there...those are just the ones that I've come across.
In the action flick Taken (R) Liam Neeson stars as an ex-spy who goes to Paris to save his estranged daughter from a mob group that has kidnapped her.
Taken is not a “new” release but it has become a staple at local cineplexes. The movie has also become somewhat of a box-office phenomenon as it has remained in the top five at the weekend box-office for eight consecutive weeks. In this day in age of short attention spans that fact is quite remarkable. Films that do well on word-of-mouth are few and far between.
The question becomes—why has this movie resonated so much with audiences? Even the star of the film Neeson has weighed in on the subject by saying, “People are angry and disgruntled about the economy. They're empathizing with a guy who takes matters into his own hands. There's a catharsis that comes from that.” There is some degree of truth coming from Neeson. The world of Taken is very black and white. The bad guys are truly bad guys and the good guy (Neeson) is an uncompromising good guy. If one is looking for a complicated film that dives into the gray area of crime and punishment then this isn't the movie for that. Taken is escapist fare and generally speaking what people are looking for that especially when times are tough.
Ultimately that line of thinking is actually selling Taken a little short. Truth-be-told, Taken is a solid action flick. It's thrilling without being over-the-top. The action scenes, while nothing new, are well shot. But most importantly, the movie doesn't try to be anything more than what it set out to be—and that's an entertaining action movie. Sometimes there's something to be said for a movie that accomplishes it's objectives. This movie set out to be a ninety minute popcorn action movie and it succeeded in that.
There's no debate that the other side of the coin in terms of Taken's success is Neeson's performance. Liam Neeson is not Hollywood's typical action star (and Neeson himself would probably admit that). But nonetheless it's his cool performance that sells the movie. Neeson is an accomplished actor and his screen presence adds a lot of weight to the narrative and instantly adds credibility to the character and story. If a lesser actor would have had this role I'm convinced that the movie would not have been the hit that it has become.
For the most part Taken succeeds as a thrilling action vehicle for Neeson. The film does falter at times as there were a few instances when the story boarded on the line of ridiculousness. But with Neeson's steady hand he was able to reel the movie in when it seemed that is was crossing over to the absurd.
Ultimately Taken isn't a movie for everybody but for those moviegoers looking for a worthwhile action spectacle then Taken is the answer. .
