Double Feature: Sports Flick Drama

Sports movies are something special. Sports movies based on a true story are even more so. But sports movies based on a true story and produced by Walt Disney Studios?

Meh.

Today we're going to look at two sports flicks that have come out recently that aren't exactly the second coming of Moneyball. The first, Draft Day, is a fictional behind-the-scenes look of an NFL team - in this case, the hard-losing Cleveland Browns - whose General Manager, Sonny Weaver Jr. (Kevin Costner) gets the opportunity to trade for the #1 pick in the draft, just hours before one of the most celebrated sporting events in the United States goes live. He's under pressure from the owner (Frank Langella), his former championship-winning coach (Dennis Leary), and even his mother (Ellen Burstyn) to make a splash for a team and a city that have been suffering an epic Super Bowl drought. It's a lot of pressure on one man, who only wants the chance to build a team of his own and see what can be done.

"You can't let them in here! They'll... they'll see the big board!"

It's not everyday you see the National Football League have an actual presence in a movie - usually, unless the movie in question is a biopic, NFL team names are either replaced by fictional fill-ins or mentioned in passing - but they're all over Draft Day, along with a healthy presence from ESPN for good measure. While on the surface that might seem like a raw, artificial deal, this is a film in which the combination of Hollywood and the showmanship of the NFL really works. Thanks to a surprisingly deft script (courtesy of newcomers Rajiv Joseph and Scott Rothman), it's got the strengths of both sides, with an excellent, stylized, expertly-edited narration that keeps you guessing as to the final outcome, and few of the weaknesses you might expect to come from that coupling.

Hey, I didn't know the Browns were interested in drafting Jackie Robinson.

Despite the strength in presentation, does Draft Day have its faults? Well, sure, the characters are all kinds of cliches, the subplot of the office romance between Weaver and Jennifer Garner's otherwise-cool "female sports executive" (because a woman can't be in a sports movie unless she's the love interest, mother or daughter) is forced, a bit unsatisfying, and absolutely a pandering to a potential female audience, and when you cast rapper Sean "P. Diddy" Combs in a major role, need I say more? But under the expert direction of Ivan Reitman (yeah, I forgot the director of Ghostbusters was here) the actors mostly put in excellent efforts, the characters are at certainly memorable, whether it's Leary's gruff antagonistic Head Coach or Chadwick Boseman as a flamboyant, energetic potential draftee. Reitman is definitely a master storyteller, as this had all the potential to be an artificial-feeling romanticization of the real NFL. It still goes a little over the top, but Draft Day is a surprisingly fun football movie, and if you can still see this in the theater, you could do a whole lot worse.

And by "a whole lot worse," I'm obviously referring to Million Dollar Arm, which had all the potential in the world as a sports tale based on a true story, before Disney got its hooks in it. On the surface, the tale of a down-on-his-luck sports agent (John Hamm) who travels to India to recruit Cricket players as potential Major League baseball players seems like JUST the idea a clever storyteller brings to the big screen. In practice... well, if you were offended by the whitewashing and "white savior" controversy that was The Help, then you haven't seen anything until you see White People Problems: The Sports Flick.

As far as acting goes, this movie has a ton of talent. Hamm transitions smoothly from TV, and while he's certainly helped by his square jaw and gruff demeanor, he shows a range that may surprise you if you havent' yet gotten around to watching Mad Men. He's also surrounded by a strong supporting cast, including The Life of Pi's Suraj Sharma and Slumdog Millionaire's Madhur Mittal as the two young athletes the agent recruits, Lake Bell as his neighbor/love interest, and Bill Paxton and Aasif Mandvi in smaller roles. Hindi star Pitobash steals many a scene as a young baseball fanatic, and while Alan Arkin tends to play the exact same character these days, you can't discount his presence or entertainment value whenever he's on the screen. In all, gun-for-hire director Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl, Fright Night) gets excellent performances from his talented team. Unfortunately, that's where this movie's upside just about dries up.

I was feeling like Arkin when I saw this, too.

But while the story of these two young men and their introduction to the sport of baseball is interesting and occasionally inspirational, we really don't learn all that much about newfound pitchers Rinku Singh and Dinesh Patel. The script paints them as coming from typically poor settings, and even if the representation of their upbringing is accurate, it doesn't make up for characters that are shallowly written, despite the charm that Sharma and Mittal bring to the roles. Instead, the story focuses all its attention on Hamm's J.B. Bernstein, combining a typical fish-out-of-water story with  money problems and a "will-they-won't-they" love story with Lake Bell's polar opposite neighbor (again, even if the events are remotely accurate, why does it all come off as classic Hollywood schlock?). As good as Hamm is, he really ought to have been a supporting character in this tale, but for the Disnification by the film's financiers.

The Daily Show auditions ran a little late...

Million Dollar Arm has a slew of smaller problems, as well. The dialogue is full of genre cliches and familiar arguments. Worse, the arguments presented are forced and don't really make any sense from a logical perspective. For instance, many characters throw down in arguments with Bernstein in terms of his treatment of the players, even though the script makes things perfectly clear that in certain explicit situations he has no power over the topic in question, making the idea of his "redemption" (from asshole to nice guy) feel ill-conceived and baseless. And along those same lines, the redemption subplot is poorly implemented, and whether the numerous red herrings that are his out-of-nowhere character turns are due to poor writing or atrocious editing is pointless to ruminate on, as either way still kills much of the story's momentum. The film even wastes the musical talents of Slumdog Millionaire's A.R. Rahman, whose unique style is wiped away to provide a simple, rote soundtrack completely void of character or identity.

"Urge to kill... rising..."

And despite that, I can't really call Million Dollar Arm a BAD movie. It accomplished exactly what it set out to do, as mistaken as the goals it postulated were. It's occasionally fun, inspirational and interesting. It's also brainless, with the focus in the completely wrong place. Not to mention that since this is a Disney movie, they avoid pointing out any serious negative about the story (like the fact that one of these young men has already been released by his major league baseball club, while the other has suffered a string of injuries and may never pitch in the majors). I guess Disney figured that nobody would want to see such a strong cultural tale told from the point of view of someone who WASN'T an American, but since nobody bothered to see this, either, I guess that concept backfired on them anyway. This MIGHT be worth a DVD rental sometime in the future, as there's definitely some interesting stuff to glean from the story's mere existence. But when compared to Draft Day, or ANY decent sports movie for that matter, Million Dollar Arm comes up a bit lame.

Oscars 2013 Catchup: 'Dallas Buyers Club' & 'The Wolf of Wall Street'

Well, all right all right all right.

As I mentioned almost a month ago, my work status and living conditions cut into my movie-going availability for this new year. When the Academy Award nominations were announced on January 16'th, I had only seen four of the eight nominees for Best Picture (which expanded to five when I took in Philomena). Consider the fact that last year's Oscars were the first in which I'd seen ALL of the Best Picture nominees and you can see what a precipitous fall that was. And despite needing to play catch-up on 2014 films (with movies like Ride Along and Non-Stop, I might be doing myself a favor waiting for DVD), I still want to know what made the most recent nominees tick and why they were so favored. And so I recently rented two of last year's Best Picture nominees, looking to see if either of them deserved to be spoken in the same sentence as big winners Gravity and 12 Years a Slave.

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that Matthew McConaughey won the Oscar for Best Actor for portraying the real-life Ron Woodroof in Jean-Marc Vallee's Dallas Buyers Club, in which Woodroof goes from rodeo enthusiast and serial hellraiser to terminal patient during the giant AIDS scare of the 1980's. Faced with the impossibility of obtaining life-saving drugs in the United States, he heads south of the border to get help via non-FDA-approved medication in Mexico. With the assistance of a fellow patient and trans woman Rayon (fellow Oscar winner Jared Leto), Woodruff traffics and distributes this unapproved medication to others ostracized by the system.

Let's be honest; as much as I love Chiwetel Ejiofor, and as AMAZING as he was in 12 Years, McConaughey ABSOLUTELY put forth the best performance by a leading man in 2013. It's easy to point to his physical transformation - his Woodruff looks like he could be snapped in half by Lou Ferrigno - but its the acting side of this man which deserves the most praise. McConaughey absolutely masters the screen, and when you consider what he as already accomplished in the world of entertainment last year (Mud, HBO's True Detective, and even stealing some early scenes in The Wolf of Wall Street, which we'll get to later), that this is his (and the) greatest acting achievement of 2013 is really saying something. And while he's surrounded by a good supporting cast - including solid second-stringer Jennifer Garner as the requisite fictional love interest - the only one who steals any of the naked bongo player's spotlight is Leto, whose transformation into the (also fictional) Rayon is haunting in its perfection and commanding presentation. And to address the elephant in the room, I understand peoples' opinions that a real trans woman should have played the role. Their arguments make a lot of sense, however, to that I have two responses. One is that Leto's work does absolutely nothing to marginalize, insult or make light of the trans community. The other is that this is ACTING, and if Leto was the best actor - trans or not - to portray the role, than he was the right one to be cast. I know it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but does that also mean Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, Emma Watson and Daniel-Day Lewis can only play British people? That seems a tad restrictive, and kind of unnecessary. If someone is the best fit for the role, then it should be offered to them. And when they do as good a job as Leto does, there's not that much left to complain about.

Two of 2013's best.

Okay, tangent over... The story itself is also standout, with the screenplay by relative newcomers Craig Borton and Melisa Wallack doing an excellent job developing the characters and setting the tone. Vallee really transports the viewer back to the 1980's and captures the fears, prejudices and events of the era with a camera style that feels appropriately intimate. We're SUPPOSED to fall in love with these characters, and the director does absolutely everything within his power to make that happen. The only thing preventing the film from being perfect is the editing, which more often than not is excessively jarring and takes the attention of the audience away from the well-crafted story. It also draws attention to the rare story weaknesses, putting a small chink into what could have been a flawless film.

I love me some Rayon, even if she doesn't actually exist...

But even with those light missteps, Dallas Buyers Club is easily among last year's best offerings. Even if McConaughey and Leto hadn't won their well-deserved Oscars, you should do yourself a favor and see this movie if you haven't done so already. Between the excellent acting and mind-shattering story, this movie EARNED its Best Picture nomination.

But while you can see at a glance why Dallas Buyers Club earned a nomination, it's not so easy to say, unseen, where The Wolf of Wall Street fits in. On one hand, it's from a filmmaker (Martin Scorcese) who easily sits atop many experts' Best Director lists, and has absolutely earned that distinction. It's also headlined by superb talents in Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill (who now has more Academy Award nominations than an embarrassingly long list of talents like Gary Oldman and Bill Murray) and even a scene-stealing McConaughey. It's even got a screenplay by a man (Terence Winter) who cut his teeth on The Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire. On the other hand, a LOT of controversy came out of this release, from the accusations that condones greed and sexism, amongst a litany of other transgressions carried out the film's characters. It has the distinction of containing the most uses of the word "fuck" in a mainstream motion picture, and that level of f-bomb dropping usually indicates a lack of creativity, rather than a surplus. Based on the best-selling nonfiction book by Jordan Belfort, this definitely wasn't going to be as cheer-worthy as any of the other nominees. Of course, that didn't matter as it still turned out to be one of the best flicks I've seen in recent years.

Little known fact: Leo doesn't crumple up and throw away money, but James Franco does.

As I mentioned before, Wolf of Wall Street is based on Belfort's life, most notably his glorious rise on Wall Street to his equally precipitous fall from grace, fueled by a life of drugs, infidelity, outrageous behavior and general hooliganism, which eventually got him caught by the FBI. From the word go, you get a real impression of what kind of movie you're in for. The language is crude, the pace is hectic, and personalities are outrageous to the point of lunacy. And whether or not this is consistent with the tone of the book (and many reviewers say it is), this kind of energy with the New York Stock Exchange set as the background is entertainment incarnate. The acting is also top notch. As I mentioned, McConaughey steals a few scenes, even though they are decidedly at the beginning of the picture. Kyle Chandler shows up and puts in a suitable Kyle Chandler offering as an FBI investigator. And while I'm not entirely certain how I feel about Margot Robbie's performance as the mandatory female love interest, two items seriously impress me. First is that her pitch-perfect Brooklyn accent came out of an Australian actress. Second, she plays a vastly different role than her admittedly-smaller part in romantic comedy About Time. She never steals the scenes from the leads, but holds her own opposite more experienced talent, so that at least is commendable.

But the show belongs to these boys.

But this film is definitely a boy's club, and three men in particular are the ringleaders of this circus: Scorcese, DiCaprio and Hill. The director tackles a topic that is not quite as offbeat for him as the kid-friendly Hugo but still feels a bit apart from even his New York-set titles. On the surface it's the kind of nihilistic glorification of greed and selfishness that had NYSE audiences cheering at the inappropriate bits upon its release. But in reality it's easy to see where the guy in charge draws the line. When the boys are running a successful firm and (arguably) harming no-one, or when Belfort is comically embroiled in the middle of a life-altering scandal, it's easy to be drawn in and amused by the hilarious antics of the protagonists. But then there are the jarring scenes, especially a violent one in the last act, where someone IS getting hurt and suddenly the drug trip isn't funny anymore, and you realize that all those good times and funny bits were hiding something much, MUCH darker, something Scorcese makes no effort to cover up or excuse. Much like Kathryn Bigelow refusing to villify prisoner torture in Zero Dark Thirty, Scorcese actually leaves the actual condemnation up to the audience's discretion, which is exactly what a good director does.

Well, we know his kryptonite...

Scorcese's leads help him perfectly in his narrative effort. DiCaprio is perfectly cast as Belfort, but to be honest it doesn't appear much of a stretch as some of his better performances over the years. Lately, it seems like he's been playing this same kind of prideful, self-centered role in The Great Gatsby, J. Edgar and Revolutionary Road. And so I only have to assume those who cry that the actor should have beaten out McConaughey and Ejiofor for the Oscar are merely DiCaprio fanboys, as here he is not quite on their same level (Don't get me wrong, he definitely deserved the nomination). But while DiCaprio puts up predictably strong work, the one who absolutely OWNS every scene is Jonah Hill. Honestly, I can't believe this is the same guy who brought us Superbad and 21 Jump Street. He's always been funny, but here he seamlessly blends into the role in a way I never would have thought him capable. If only one person from this film could have been nominated for an Oscar, it ought to have been Hill all the way. Not only has the actor been the lucky recipient of two Academy Award nominations, but he absolutely EARNED them, as well.

Well... that's different...

Now, as much as I loved The Wolf of Wall Street, I also admit that it has its share of problems. At three hours, it's either thirty minutes too long or short (better editing in the third act would have made for a watchable extended cut). Scorcese falls into his usual trap of obvious metaphors on occasion (one particular scene comparing Belfort to the cartoon Popeye is especially groan-inducing), a habit inexcusable for such a seasoned director. And the movie DOES contain a ton of controversial material, from the objectification of women to a relative lack of punishment for the protagonists, though it should also be pointed out that the real fault for this lies with Belfort and his cronies who played out the real-life story, not the filmmakers who faithfully adapted it to the screen. In fact, Scorcese should be lauded for taking such a despicable character and such a horrible story and making them interesting and utterly compelling to a movie-going public. It's incredibly easy to admire much of what Belfort did all those years on Wall Street, even if it turned out to be more harmful than anything else. And Scorcese's project is absolutely a condemnation of the events in question, even if it doesn't seem like it all the time. It isn't made for everybody, but I still think everybody should see The Wolf of Wall Street at least once. If nothing else, it's a window into a world you may never be a part of, and a cautionary tale so that this true story is never repeated again.

A Disney Oddity

When I first saw promotional material for The Odd Life of Timothy Green, I was still dating former "loyal sidekick" Anne. That was over a year ago - well before Todd and I met - and illustrates just how long parent company Disney has been pushing this feel-good family release. It seems like an odd decision to do so; in the time since, similar film We Bought a Zoo released its trailers, got into theaters in December, banked its profits and released on DVD. For such a title as Odd Life to promote itself a year in advance seems like either shoddy marketing or a failure in the making. In fact, after seeing that trailer for the first time, I didn't see a single follow-up until just this past spring, causing me to believe that the movie had been delayed due to negative feedback. But no, August 15'th was always meant to be the film's release date, and The Odd Life of Timothy Green, with midcard performers Jennifer Garner and Joel Edgerton at the forefront, finally hit theaters a couple of weeks ago. Worth the extensive wait? I suppose it depends how much saccharine you like in your coffee.

Parents without a clue.

When married couple Cindy (Garner) and Jim (Edgerton) Green discover that they cannot conceive a child, they are understandably crushed. Cindy desires that same proud feeling her sister expresses about her "gifted" children, while Jim desperately wants to be the attentive, loving father he never had. Spending every dime they had on medical treatments and examinations, they are at the end of their rope. Finally, in an attempt to move on, they take down all the ideas of what their perfect child would be, lock those written notes in a box, and bury it in the garden. That night, they are shocked to discover a young boy (CJ Adams) appear in their home, a boy who apparently dug himself out of the garden. Calling himself Timothy, the naive and earnest boy sets about changing the lives of the Greens and their friends and family, in many unexpected ways. But what nobody but Timothy knows is that he only has a limited amount of time on this Earth...

The "Family Talent Show" did not go as well as planned...

I admit that there were some notions of the trailers that had sparked my interest, from the magical appearance of Timothy to the leaves that are seen on his legs from the get-go. But beyond that, the idea that this movie could be anything beyond its "miraculous" lead character didn't seem possible, and director Peter Hedges doesn't do anything to prove me wrong. It's all Timothy, all the time, and between his parents' shock at everything he does and says to people alternating between thinking he's weird and genuinely liking him, his presence gets very tired VERY fast. It doesn't help that CJ Adams is just one in a long line of annoying kid actors whose earnestness and energy become a major liability the more the audience is exposed to them. And despite the fact that both Garner and Edgerton are quality talents, neither is at the top of their respective games. We've seen the pensive mother-type from Garner before, but she was so much better in Juno. And for Edgerton, going from dark, gritty roles in Animal Kingdom, The Thing and Warrior to a more family-friendly movie doesn't feel as genuine as he and I had hoped.

How does this end? He leaves her.

 This means that The Odd Life of Timothy Green must live or die by the strength of its supporting characters, a varied bunch limited by the cliched similarities inherent in small-town American towns. Rosemarie Dewitt (who has appeared in a lot this year), Dianne Wiest, M. Emmet Walsh, David Morse, Ron Livingston and Common play normal people in normal ways and don't really do anything special outside of being very talented, which is fine but not great. There are a few standouts, however. Playing Timothy's best friend, Odeya Rush makes a wonderful splash as the reserved, artistic Joni. And Iranian actress Shohreh Aghdashloo carries the small role of a representative for an adoption firm that the Greens are in contact with. Both actresses put on great performances, but are sadly underused and could have done much more to liven up the story.

The whole thing is about as exciting as this screenshot

Because despite the talent of the people onscreen, it is the story that sinks Timothy Green. The plot feels incredibly thin, as Timothy's journey to impact lives over and over again and help Cindy and Jim overcome their parenting hiccups stops being charming after the first hour. What follows is boredom: lots and LOTS of boredom as you wait for something (Anything!) fun to happen. There's no way small children will be able to maintain their attention throughout this movie, which is weird since this IS supposed to be a family film. While it does keep the sugar factor going strong and wrap up things in a happy fashion, it doesn't make the boring interludes forgivable, nor does it manage to carry the script beyond the interesting idea that it once was.

"Hello, I must be going."

It's that lack of follow through that makes The Odd Life of Timothy Green one of this year's lesser films. It's not horrible, but much more needed to be done to make this a film a classic children's film, and it ends up in the lower half of 2012's mid-range pack. This is Disney playing it safe, while ParaNorman does a much better job entertaining kids in its own charmingly subversive way. Wholly uninteresting and not worth the ticket price, you can save Timothy Green for a final-option DVD rental.

Arthur's Reign

For as long as I can remember, my father has maintained this opinion regarding film remakes: the original is always better. Just about anyone can finger dozens of films that prove this, from Psycho to Planet of the Apes, The Wicker Man.to Flight of the Phoenix, Godzilla to Poseidon. It's far too mundane pointing out these obvious atrocities however, with such obviousness do they make themselves. It's true that Hollywood too often gets lazy when it comes to these titles, thinking all that's needed to appeal to both an existing audience and a young, fresh one is a tried and true story with name-brand stars and CGI. And yet for all the times my father was automatically right, I've seen several films that throw his timeless theory out into the streets. True Grit. The Ring. 3:10 to Yuma. Dawn of the Dead. The Thing. Many people don't know it, but Martin Scorcese's Oscar-winning The Departed was actually a remake of the Hong Kong thriller Internal Affairs. When done right, a remake might be even better than the original, even if the chances of that are fairly remote. And so that brings me to this day's review. Arthur is a remake of the 1981 film that starred Dudley Moore as spoiled, drunken billionaire who learns the true values of life and love. Arthur was nominated for four Oscars, won two, and is to this day considered among the best comedies of all time. Though a remake featuring British comedian Russell Brand would at first seem to land nowhere close to the level of quality put forth by the original, there was still some chance that the film might actually be pretty good, most notably in the castings of Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner to back up Brand. And so I chose it this past weekend over Your Highness and Soul Surfer, the best of the rest from last week's new releases (of course having already seen the amazing Hanna), hoping for the best.

...And this is largely how Brand won his Arthur role...

Arthur (Brand) is a the fun-loving heir to the Bach mogul empire who finds himself in a fix when his disruptive and media-drawing escapades get him in deep water with his estate, most notably his mother (Geraldine James), who has never paid much attention to him and placed him in the care of Hobson (Mirren), his nanny since childhood. Embarrassed by his antics and knowing the distrust others place on the future of her company thanks to them, threatens to cut off his inheritance if he doesn't stop his childish ways. To that end, she arranges his marriage to Susan Johnson (Garner), a smart businesswoman in her own right who has interest in Arthur, though he really can't stand her. Instead, he randomly falls for tour guide/children's book author Naomi (Greta Gerwig), and the two begin a wonderful friendship. Soon, Arthur must choose whether to accept the marriage and with it his inheritance, or risk loving Naomi in poverty.

...And then he convinced Helen Mirren the film would be a good idea...

Every film director has to start somewhere, and this time it was Jason Winer's turn to make a dreadful debut. Winer comes in as one of TV's better talents, probably best known as one of the directors of the Emmy-winning series Modern Family. I don't watch the show regularly, but every time I do I can't help but love it. The show often weaves hilarity with heart, not an easy thing to do on a regular basis. Unfortunately, what works for a half-hour comedy show doesn't seem to work itself out over a nearly two-hour film. To be frank, Arthur is not humorous. All the funny stuff (if you can call it that) appears in the trailers or commercials you've already seen, and there's not one bit apart that seems even slightly entertaining. Winer shares in some of the blame, but even devoted Brand enthusiasts would be stretched to find anything to latch onto, unless you were as drunk as the the eponymous hero of the film while watching. With the exception of a few instances, there's remarkably little to laugh at, and Arthur often tries to establish itself as a serious narrative, despite featuring Brand on its poster.

You can just see Garner plotting her prison break

Perhaps the film's biggest obstacle is that in this day and age, billionaires just aren't as likable as they used to be. Long ago were the days of Little Orphan Annie and other stories in which rich folk were portrayed as benevolent and whimsical, almost like they were too good to be true. Unfortunately, in recent years we as a nation have been witness to Bernie Madoff and multiple other high-profile magnates, many who made their money by cheating the underclasses out of hard-earned dough. Even lesser-known moguls worldwide are often given lesser sentences for the heinous crimes they commit, further exacerbating the problem. Working class people have become so cynical that they simply don't trust the ruling classes, and so asking them to see a film featuring one, even a supposedly fun one like Arthur Bach, is as tough a sell as you can make.

Gerwig unveils her newest invention: the smoking children's book

To that end it's difficult to tell if Brand's performance is the worst I've seen this year or actually pretty good. Playing to the hilt the "spoiled rich boy" image, he really doesn't do anything differently than you've seen before, even in 2010's Shakespeare adaptation The Tempest. Brand's strength is not in acting; he's a comedian, and from what some have told me, a damned good one. He's certainly got a memorable image, and a public persona that demands attention. All the roles he's played up to this point have capitalized on that and only that aspect of his celebrity, and therefore barely qualify as characters and more as caricatures of the actor involved. Arthur is to a degree likable, but not so much that you can understand the attraction he presents to not one but two female leads. Helen Mirren is possibly the standout of the crowd, not surprising to anyone who's seen her perform. Taking a gender-bender with the role that netted actor John Gielgud an Academy Award in the original film, Mirren is amusing and inspiring, even when she's not actually in the scene. Sure, it's a step down, but she's still Helen freakin' Mirren! Yet it's Greta Gerwig with whom I found myself smiling more when the young actress was on screen. As the young, smart Naomi, Gerwig plays to the blue collars in the audience, working wonders in the process. She also has great scenes with Brand, and those bits with the two together are among the title's best. I was actually disappointed with Jennifer Garner. The actress, whose disappointing career showed a much higher ceiling with her guest-starring role in 2007's Juno, is pure movie villain through and through. Using the arranged marriage as a stepping stone to fame and fortune, Garner's character is so unlikable to the audience that it's implausible that she could at all be appealing to her fellow characters. Minor roles by Geraldine James (in another gender-swap), Luis Guzman and Nick Nolte are fine enough, but nothing to write home about.

Arthur's opening night audience

Arthur might have had the potential to be among the year's biggest surprises, but will end the year struggling to not be among its worst films. Failing to crack the Top 10 right now is not the kiss of death it was in March, but to do so on such an epic scale is disappointing to say the least. I definitely would not recommend it to you, fair readers, as while this month would seem to be a weak one for film releases overall, that's still not excuse enough to spend your money on this turd. If you have to see one movie this weekend in the theaters, I can name a dozen movies off the top of my head, including Hanna, Win Win, The Adjustment Bureau, Jane Eyre and Insidious. There's simply no reason to let Arthur get anywhere near that list.