Whats on My iPhone

This really is not a film that I can recommend. Being about machines and dystopia put the film directly in my area of interest, but I can honestly say that there was not a moment during the film where I was truly entertained. Heck, I’m not sure there was a single moment that I wasn’t borderline bored.

Robert Moore reviewed:

The political aspects of this film have generated a huge amount of controversy. The story of a white family helping a black kid is bound to stir controversy. There are so many issues raised by this that I won’t even start to get into that. I think people will bring their own politics to a viewing of the film, so it will serve as a Rorschach test. I see it as an indictment of society at large and the almost complete lack of opportunity for a huge number of very poor blacks. I see Michael Oher as an exception, a kid who got very lucky because of the compassion of one family in a position to help. Conservatives will see this as a validation of private largess, while I see the opposite, with virtually no one willing to do what the Tuohy’s did. Not many people will get breaks like Michael did.

I’m happy for Sandra Bullock. I’ve always liked her, but have watched her career with a sense of horror. She has turned down some roles in pictures that were successful, while she has been in a long string of clunkers. This was easily her best role since . . . SPEED? Many of her best roles actually came from before SPEED, in small supporting performances. Of the top box office actresses of her era, she may have the worst group of movies on her resume. I also like that she is another of an increasing number of actresses to continue to enjoy success after turning 40. It is great to see her have such great success after so many stinky movies.

As an Arkansas fan (and therefore an SEC fan) I got a kick out of seeing former Arkansas coaches Lou Holtz (who was fired for his awkward handling of racial tensions on the team, stupidly making a commercial endorsing racist North Carolina senator Jesse Helms when the Arkansas program was being torn apart by accusations of racial insensitivity on the team–and what could be racially less sensitive than making a commercial for that old hate monger) and Houston Nutt (fired due to stupidity of some Arkansas fans who created an untenable atmosphere — not that I don’t enjoy the current Arkansas coach). There is a funny moment where Houston Nutt, as the Arkansas head coach, notices that Leigh Anne is holding an Ole Miss cup. That is funny because when fan pressure drove Nutt out of his job at Arkansas, he became the head coach at Ole Miss. Speaking of Arkansas, Michael Oher should have gone there. Darren McFadden and Felix Jones might have been even more productive. Well, maybe not. I’m not sure how either of them could have done much more than they did. Oher did end up playing for Houston Nutt. Interestingly, I am pretty sure that all of the coaches who appeared in the film are now actually at other schools or out of football entirely.

I have to point out that a couple of actors from one of my all time favorite TV series, FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS, were in THE BLIND SIDE. The boy who played the irrepressible S.J., Jae Head, played the equally irrepressible Bo in Season One of FNL, a little boy who idolized Tim Riggins. And Kim Dickens, who played the teacher who first recognized that Michael Oher was smarter than many assumed, played Matt Saracen’s Mom in Seasons Three and Four.

Robert Moore reviewed:

Although the strongest thing in CRAZY HEART is Jeff Bridges’s performance, it is far from the only fine thing in it. The songs are amazing (and the film will definitely take home one or two Oscars for music) and all sound like classics you should have known from the past, but don’t be cause they were written by Stephen Bruton and T-Bone Burnett, who also produced the album. Jeff Bridges does a very credible job performing the songs, as does Colin Farrell as hot country performer Tommy Sweet. Maggie Gyllenhaal has always been fascinating to me. Sometimes she is amazing and is quite cute. Other times she is bland and fairly plain looking. But in this film she was quietly compelling in a very difficult role and was quite fetching. Her role was difficult for the same reason that Ginger Rogers’s roles with Fred Astaire were so tough. No, it isn’t the old quip about her doing the same thing that Fred did only in high hills and backwards. Fred’s dancing was on a completely different plane than Ginger’s, but where she excelled was making the audience believe that she found Fred so appealing. Now, Bad Barton (Bridges’s character) is not a very sexy or appealing guy. Well, to be honest, he is repulsive. But Gyllenhaal makes us believe he has qualities that a woman might find appealing. We don’t see it in Bad; we see it in Gyllenhaal’s face. This is why she should also get an Oscar nomination. The cinematography is up to the standards of the music and acting and the writing should definitely snag an Oscar nomination.

This is simply a flat out great movie. I think the Oscar can pretty much be handed over to AVATAR this year, but if there is a dark horse that might sneak in and steal it, it might well be CRAZY HEART. This is a rare, special film that I think anyone who loves movies — as opposed to blockbuster special effects flicks — will adore. I have no explanation for the two previous reviews. I don’t think either makes any sense whatsoever or will be the reaction of the vast majority of viewers. Certainly the film is getting great, great reviews and has won a shelf full of awards, mainly for Best Actor, Best Music, and Best Song. I think this is one of those beautiful, moving films that people will enjoy and treasure. And it is definitely my favorite film made in 2009 (though I have not yet seen AVATAR, though I’ve seen all the other award contenders from the past year). Trust me, if you love movies and love great acting, you will love this movie.

Robert Moore reviewed:

The film has some decent moments, but not enough of them. The film has too many moments that drag and it has a central premise that leads to conclusions that you pretty much anticipated twenty minutes after it starts. The writing simply isn’t that strong. But like I said, by today’s standards the film is better than average. I’ve wondered about this lately. I think a lot of it is the influence of Jud Apatow on recent film comedy. I enjoyed his two TV series, but his films have been remarkably bland, but have come to dominate the shape of current film comedy. So current film comedy is suffering by an endless string of weak imitations of the Apatow Combine. But I think there is also a staggering lack of creativity at the moment. There are no great comedy directors, no great comedy writers, and no great comedy actors. Not too long ago we had people like Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks (before he shifted to dramatic roles) making lots of good comedies. But there are also some inexplicable group lapses in taste. How else can anyone explain how people like Wil Ferrell and Seth Rogen became stars? One thing is for sure: if in fifty years someone does a list of the one hundred great comedies of all time, few and more probably none will come from today. We are living in the comedic dark ages.

So, is this a good movie? No. Is it a bad movie? No. Is it better than average by today’s standards? Yes. And until Hollywood learns to make decent film comedies again films like this will help fill the void.

Robert Moore reviewed:

I’m really surprised how much I liked this, January 10, 2010

I can understand why people might not like this. Steve Zahn’s character really is something like a stalker and it is kind of hard to imagine someone like him not scaring someone like Jennifer Aniston’s character to death. And their entire relationship is absurdly unlikely. Still, both Zahn and Aniston manage to be unexpectedly likable and in a weird way they end up making a nice couple. Whether you like or dislike this will depend on how easily you buy into the entire concept.

Also, we live in a period in which romantic comedies — which is actually my favorite genre — are suffering from steep decline. So, while this would not by any stretch of the imagination qualify as a great film, it is, compared to other options at the moment, not at all bad.

Another way in which the film managed to rise above many others of the same time is the photography. Almost every shot is more interesting than you would expect in a film like this. There are a host of interesting shots and camera angles and it really does rise higher than the typical film.

Also, got to love any movie that includes several New Pornographers songs. But if you can cut the film a tiny bit of slack and willingly suspend that disbelief (along with your sense if incredulity) this is a film you could find fun.

Robert Moore reviewed: