Reviews

The story seemed so predictable to me that I was almost sure I'd seen it before, but probably just in episodes of TV sitcoms or maybe movies of the week. The gruff man who doesn't want to get in touch with his feelings, and who feels therapists are quacks, with the long-suffering wife who finally asserts herself to make the man change. Which, of course, he does.

Tommy Lee Jones and Merryl Streep do credible jobs in their stereotypical roles. Steve Carrel plays it mostly straight (almost to extremes, speaking in a calm monotone throughout the film). While some of the ideas of his character (Dr. Feld) are off-beat enough to, I assume, seem funny, the older couple inevitably try them and almost always find they are successful. There was little to indicate why Carrel's character would be seen as a renowned guru in relationships except the fact that he's written a book Streep's character buys, and appears in an online commercial she finds. That is enough to convince her to spend $4,000, plus airfare and hotel (a shameless though two-sided plug for Econolodge), taken from her savings to enroll her and her husband (whom she doesn't tell about the plan until she's paid and planned everything). The therapist is located in a town called Hope Springs. Get it? Hope Springs! GET IT?

While Arnold (Lee) repeatedly—ad infinitum-- voices his belief that therapists are charlatans who just cause problems , there was no real tension based on a much young man giving advice to this couple who have been married for so many years. Feld's own history of relationships is not mentioned. They don't use his advice as a basis to discover own solutions. Feld just knows what they need. At times the characters seemed to sleepwalk through the sessions. When asked about sexual fantasies and Arnold mentions one regarding a neighbor woman, Kay reacts with the same degree of surprise as if saying, "Oh, you liked that movie?"

Arnold changes his personality for the better, then reverts to his old self, then improves again. Rinse and repeat. His problems are not terribly complicated or deep-seated, so they are easily solved. And solved, they are. Just as they would be in a sitcom. Not just a small or medium change on the man's part. He's a new person His wife, who is portrayed as having far fewer problems in terms of intimacy than her husband, is happy--- and vindicated. She's been right all along, and Arnold realizes he's been a fool. Life is simple. Going to a book stores (preferably Barnes & Noble) pays off.

You don't go into a film like this expecting surprises, and there are virtually none. As soon as Streep's character talks about fantasies, you know exactly—I mean exactly—what the last scene in the movie will be.

The film, lauded by some as showing "mature" sex, could have been so much more.

What is the difference between a film "based on a true story" and one "inspired by a true story"? This was inspired by a true story, and at the end gives an update on the real-life characters after which those in the story were patterned, but we really don't know how much of the storyline in the film really took place. I am assuming the writers of the screenplay took certain liberties, especially to evoke the sympathies which they thought (correctly) would lead to a hit.

Most of the audience in the theater in which I saw the film (in Brazil) laughed uproariously, I cringed at what seemed to me obvious and unoriginal jokes, and a storyline with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. The rich white guy need an assistant and hires the brash young Senegalese man (Algerian, in real life), who, of course, knows about living life to the fullest, and listening to upbeat music (inexplicably, 30 year-old songs from Earth, Wind & Fire). The black man dances well, of course. Several times he is given a task he feels demeaning and onerous (e.g., wiping the older man's behind), and at first refuses, but inevitably quickly acquiesces.

I have to admit I tuned out a few times, waiting for the film to end (I was there with my spouse so didn't walk out), so can't say for sure, but I don't believe the film touched on an obvious question: what if the poor African immigrant had been the disabled one, and the rich, white French businessman had been able-bodied? They probably would never have met, but if they had, what would have been the dynamics? All in all, the film seemed to have more elements of "Driving Miss Daisy" than of the also-true story of a disabled French man (and much better-written and acted), "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly."

You would have to be blind to not see how the story will ultimately turn out, but you don't go to a film like this for surprises. The snooty-rich-learn-from-humble-but-fun-poor has been done tons of times. In this case, the husband is shown almost from the start to be a good, open-minded, big-hearted person. In the beginning he is shown to be a stickler on exactly his egg is to be cooked, but this is almost as bad as he gets (with a minor, brief lapse towards the end, to add some drama). This presumably helps make up for the fact that he acts as a cad-- especially in loyalty to his wife and children-- later on (though this is actually portrayed as a good thing).

It is a slow film. The acting is generally good. The poor are hard working and fun loving. They sing. They dance. The rich are, as one of them says, dead. Thus, money does not bring happiness (and being poor actually helps). This might have been biting social commentary 50 years ago. Now it just helps make for a pleasant, mildly diverting film.

This movie actually held my interest for about 10 minutes, and it could have been interesting, but it wasted no time in portraying the characters in the most simplistic of ways (e.g., bad people all take drugs, screw around and, in some cases, market weaponry).

The Snipes character makes threats that would be credible only if he were willing to kill innocent people, but the writers/director make it clear soon in the film that he is a principled man (also a great shot) who is on the side of goodness, and against bad people. You know he is bluffing. If the characters had been a bit more mixed, and not like cartoon characters, the movie might have been more interesting. It did have potential.

If bumps in the night and a person jumping out of a closet with a fake mask on (done as a joke) make you jump, even if you're watching them take place in a movie, this movie might frighten you. If not, prepare to snooze. I kept waiting for something to happen. The technique of a story supposedly being video taped has been done to death. And many parts are just simply a regular film of people videotaping (unless all of the characters have video cameras implanted in their foreheads). I've see episodes of "Twilight Zone" and "Night Gallery" that were infinitely more scary. The scariest thing about this film is that it's apparently a hit. There's no exploration of paranormal activity. It's misleading and, worse, is just plain boring.

The film is a big step up from "A Tall Dark Stranger," a Woody film I found one of the most pointless cinematic works I've ever seen. This actually had a plot, some character development and an ending, though an awfully pat one.

Since it is Allen, especially latter day Allen, it is not about subtlety. It starts out with many slow shots of the beauties of Paris (no slums, traffic, etc. included; Allen deals with rich folk in this film). The parents representing insular America are Republicans, put down anything French, express a preference for things American (including wine but with the exception of furniture), and —the film makes a big point about this —spend an evening in Paris going to a forgettable American film (it would have really been funny if it turned out to be a Woody Allen film, but that would have diminished Allen's point about what insular rubes most Americans are).

Allen's decision to make the time travel in the film real, versus imagined, as evidenced in a book, seemed a questionable one to me, but a scene where a private detective ends up way back in time was probably the funniest part of the entire film. Lucky for the film's characters, when they do go back in time no one seems to notice their strange clothes and, more importantly, the restaurants and bars seem to accept money of the future.

The acting is mixed. Owen Wilson is a likable character, though I had a difficult time buying him as a literary expert. He came across as a naive, not-well-traveled county bumpkin the big city, even when supposedly commiserating one-on-one with the likes of Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald (each time greeting them with a "Gosh, you're . . ." While he was surprised to meet important historical characters, the idea of him traveling through time seemed almost normal to him. Kurt Fuller is an experienced, talented actor but seemed to be doing the same shtick he does on the TV sit-com "Better With You." Rachel McAdams plays a rather shrewish woman you are not meant to sympathize with any more than with her father. Carla Bruni is okay as a tour guide but obviously was used because she's First Lady of France (iAllen sucking up to the French??).

All in all, a pleasant and diverting film. The ending will surprise few people but that applies to many films. It's not a film whose lessons you will ponder for long after leaving the cinema, but neither should you feel like you wasted your time.

I would describe the film as semi-interesting, and I feel that's being generous. It is, indeed, a movie about a point in someone's life, without astonishing events, and this could conceivably make for an interesting movie. But the characters need to be interesting. And there needs, at the least, to be much more editing than this film apparently underwent. At times, such as when two prostitutes were dancing for the actor in his hotel room, I got the impression the camera just kept rolling while the director (Sofia Coppola, who has a lot of experience in the profession) went away to take a phone call or go to the bathroom. You really don't need to bore the viewer in order to show how boring someone's life is. At least you do not need to do so repeatedly.

While there are many loose ends left at the end of the film, that's okay and even desirable in some cases. A film can skip from unrelated event to unrelated event and still keep one's interest and even have impact. But if the events, and the characters involved, aren't particularly interesting, these events just take up time in this regular long film (or at least it seemed long-- again, the lack of good editing). The long trip from L.A. to the drop-off point for the daughter's summer camp (no bus, just a taxi with the camp's name on the back), via a stop in Las Vegas, seemed particularly pointless.

To Director Coppola's credit, she avoided the pitfall of going overboard to show a character as degraded and not having a substantive personality. At least a couple of characters feel he's a jerk, but all in all he's not a bad guy, and is in fact a good father. If this had not been the umpteenth film showing the pointless existence of some rich celebrities, the film might have been notable. The brief scenes showing how shallow and vapid are many reporters who cover the film industry were more effective than the longer scenes showing the principal character's life as without any real point.

In the end, I really didn't care what happened to the character. The ending was somewhat subtle, though also unoriginal. The actors do a serviceable job, though the only ones I remembered afterward were Stephen Dorff portraying a character that reminded me of Kiefer Sutherland, and Elle Fanning, younger (and, perhaps, more talented) sister of Dakota Fanning, portraying Dorff's daughter.

One sidelight: the movie does give quite a lot of publicity to the Château Marmont Hotel in Hollywood, and perhaps the hotel paid for this, or at least gave the film crew permission to film for free. Or maybe Coppola just likes the hotel. But to me it portrayed the hotel as a rather outdated, ordinary-looking place. It does have an interesting history, in terms of famous guests, but that is mentioned only very briefly.

There seem to have been two types of boxing films over the years: 1) those showing the false hopes, and hard falls, of ultimately-doomed boxers (e.g., "The Harder They Fall"); 2) and those showing a boxer rising from working class origins to, improbably, reach a title bout during which he's about to lose but then draws upon inner strength to win. This film is the latter. It's "based on a true story," so it's not completely made-up (like "Rocky"), but it's also not strictly factual (I don't know what parts were and which were not).

The one area in which the film stands out is acting. The Oscar-nominated performances by Christian Bale and Melissa Leo stand out. Bale, who submerges himself into his role enough that I didn't recognize him, is particularly worthy of his award. His apparently quick kicking of a cocaine addiction was the one part that seemed contrived. Leo convincingly plays a character so obnoxious that you don't want the inevitable reconciliation with Micky to take place. However, her quick change in behavior towards the end of the film did not ring true. Mark Wahlberg does a fine job, as does Amy Adams, playing a typical movie girlfriend standing by her man through hard times. Adams's acting seemed particularly, well, ordinary (not bad, just not special). I was very surprised at her nomination for Best Actress in a Supporting Role. The actresses playing the sisters did good jobs playing white trash babes with hair styles I haven't seen since the 1960s. I would not want to meet any of them in a dark alley-- or anywhere else, for that matter.

The scenes taking place in boxing rings look like those I've seen in dozens of films before. I am no boxing expert, but Wahlberg did not appear all that tired in the matches, even when he appeared he was about to lose. These scenes are inevitably matched with those of cheering friends and family watching the match on television. The climactic scene of his victory in the championship bout, with the cheers and hugs, was expected, and almost a cliché. Again, not badly done, but nothing I haven't seen before.

All in all, "The Fighter" is a good, well-acted film with a familiar storyline and ending. You probably don't go expecting a surprise ending (especially if you see the film in someplace like Brazil, where the film is titled "O Vencedor," meaning "The Victor"), and news stories about the film, and well-publicized synopses, give away its ending. I can understand people enjoying the film, and some of the performances being awarded prizes, but I do not understand effusive praise declaring the film a 9 or 10 out of 10.

The movie's theme seems to be, as one character states, a bunch of stuff happens but in the end it has no meaning. In the old days, Woody Allen could have made this into a hilarious dark comedy. But now he just makes a movie in which a bunch of stuff happens and, ultimately, it has no meaning.

I can't recall any of the characters seeming likable or interesting, but at least a couple of them seemed intended to seem so.

He does still have his devoted followers who seem to like anything he does. But the boring characters (some from TV sitcoms) and same music played over and over just made me wish the film would end. I didn't laugh once, and as I left the theater I didn't ponder anything other than why I'd paid money to see this movie. It did have some potential, but in the end there was nothing.

A technically well-done, but largely unoriginal, and overlong, film. Most of it was still enjoyable-- at times it even seemed like Affleck was content not to make his character the most prominent or even most likable character-- but towards the end the story became less credible. Afflect seemed to remember he was the star and the director. The ending, which was reportedly a substantial change from that of the novel on which the film was based, seemed a cop-out (no pun intended). I also learned that even if a character sprays automatic weapon fire indiscriminately, if the camera doesn't expressly show his bullets hitting someone, and they express some remorse, the person can still claim he never killed anyone, and he can be seen, all in all, as a good guy. The Irish-American accents seemed overdone to me, but I did read that much work was done to ensure that the accents in the film were authentic.