Stuff by Steve

Synopsis: A biopic of legendary boxer James J. Braddock.

There are three kinds of dramas that appeal to men. These are a) the inspirational biography, b) the classic sports movie, and c) the inspirational biographical classic sports movie. “Cinderella Man” fell squarely in the third category. A reflection on a rough period in the life of boxer James J. Braddock, the movie told the story of a caring father and husband who fought his way through the Great Depression to keep his family alive. He happened to be a one-time contender for the Heavyweight Championship of the World, an scenario which provided the perfect mechanism for the heart-swelling story that followed. His underdog attempt at a comeback was the focus of the plot, but it could have been any event in the man’s life, as he was shown to demonstrate courage and commitment in everything he attempted. Some weak areas in the film included the contrived villain that, in reality, probably wasn’t as awful and villainous as he was made out to be (although maybe he was, you just never know). Having said that, Braddock probably wasn’t as saintly as he was made out to be, but no man ever is. Still, the thing about this kind of story is that it gives you something to strive for, and it’s refreshing to get a boost of moral motivation once in a while. There were some predictable moments, such as the emotional conflict that centered around his children, but I’m not sure predictability is a valid complaint for a movie based on a true story. Besides, there wasn’t much to complain about in the first place. The story was relevant, the protagonist likable, the pacing deft, the acting superb, and the conclusion satisfying. It seemed a bit odd to see the a native New Zealander play an Irishman, but Crowe delivered a good New York accent, even if he didn’t have red hair. Renée Zellweger and Paul Giamatti were outstanding as well. The boxing itself was well done, and very tastefully so, although violent in nature. I felt the “depression” of the era in every set and period costume, which was really the icing on the cake, as it provided the perfect mood of desperation that made me glad that I live in the era that I do. You know, life isn’t so bad, once you put it in this kind of perspective. Anyway, a fine film.

Synopsis: A remake of a 1977 comedy by the same name, Dick Harper (Jim Carrey) loses his VP job as a major corporation. Frustrated by his misfortune, he and his wife (Téa Leoni) turn to crime to “keep up with the Joneses.” The catch: they are not criminals, just misguided suburbanites.

Somewhat reminiscent of “Trading Places” (Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy), the gist of “Fun with Dick and Jane” was a fairly traditional reversal-of-fortune comedy. You know the kind; mostly cheap laughs gave levity to the main character’s run of bad luck, but after learning that our main man’s misfortune was actually the result of some dirty dealing, a plan was hatched to make everything right with the world by sticking it to the powers-that-be who were responsible for said pain and suffering. Inspired by the recent corporate scandals of Enron, ImClone, et al, the story came across as somewhat of a parody of current events, sometimes bordering on being quite preachy. Ultimately, this proved to be a bit distracting, especially when you wonder, who is this film preaching too; the three people in the audience who are involved in cooking their own companies’ books? And then, seemingly in contradiction, you begin to contemplate how a life of crime can be justified, regardless of the circumstances, and you start searching the screen for some life lesson to reveal itself from the perspective of our protagonist. It doesn’t happen. No matter, though; just shake your head a bit and wait for the next slapstick scene. The movie’s overall tone was light (hello, Jim Carrey), and I laughed out loud a few times more than I was expecting to. Ultimately, this movie was not as deftly pulled off as many classic comedies that preceded it, but you could sure do worse on a Saturday night. In apparently stark disparity with the entire professional and amateur reviewer community, I liked it.