Raging Bull (1980)

Released:  December 19^th, 1980

Rated:  R

Studio:  United Artists

Starring:  Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Cathy Moriarty

Directed by:  Martin Scorsese             

Written by:  Paul Schrader, Mardik Martin

Personal Bias Alert:  likes boxing movies, finds Scorsese very hit or miss, hates misogyny

3.5 of 10

            This is a film I was bound to dislike.  We all have a few things that we just can’t stand, that make us lean back in our chair, cross our arms tightly, and do that disgusted scowl.  Misogyny is one of mine.  Now I’m not claiming that anyone involved in the making of this film is misogynistic, including its male-centric director Martin Scorsese.  They are simply telling the story of a man consumed by his own macho ego, who is, yes, misogynistic, but also temperamental and deeply insecure.  Many excellent films have been made about a flawed character’s descent, but this is one I simply couldn’t get behind.

            Jake LaMotta (Robert De Niro) is the flawed boxer whose descent is tracked in “Raging Bull.”  His dream is to win the middleweight title, a goal that’s well within his reach, but his refusal to work with the mob hampers his chances at a title shot.   His brother, Joey (Joe Pesci), works as his manager.  The meat of the film spans Jake’s fifteen year career, although most of the action takes place outside the ring, with Jake and Joey navigating their tumultuous relationships with friends, family, and each other.

            The film is bookended with two scenes of an aging Jake, overweight and puffing on a cigar, practicing a routine he is about to perform onstage.  Much has been made of the impressive weight gain De Niro underwent to film the later portions of Jake’s life.  It helps to see him pant through his lines, but the performance itself is greater than any physical feat.  The brash ego of Jake always shines through, and De Niro plays the part without any concern for good looks.  Pesci works on the same level as De Niro, but the third wheel in this act, Jake’s wife Vickie played by Cathy Moriarty, is stiff.  I read later that this was her first acting role, having been recruited for her voice and looks.  These things don’t make a performance, and her inability to bring anything to an otherwise weak character is a big flaw in the film.

            The cinematography is an often lauded part of the film, and I must agree with the consensus here.  It’s great work; even the unnecessary black and white shtick that I normally find distractingly pretentious didn’t bother me here.  It really conveys the feeling of being in a room with these people, of sitting with their nastiness and madness.  The boxing scenes are visceral, and the repeated shots of water flowing down the boxer’s bodies was almost hypnotic.  Despite the violence of the fights, we understand the appeal of the ring.  It’s the one place where it’s acceptable for Jake to be the raging bull that he is.

            I really can’t fault the film from a technical standpoint.  It’s very well crafted, but the story just didn’t work for me.  The first scene we get of Jake as a young man outside the ring is him blowing up at his wife for cooking a steak too long.  It’s a long verbal and physical explosion that makes Jake’s flaws immediately apparent.  While I hated the misogyny Jake and Joey show throughout the movie, there was still a chance for this film to be interesting if it truly showed Jake’s descent.  The problem is, Jake doesn’t really change throughout the film.  He’s nasty to everyone, and the conversations and conflicts he has with the people surrounding him never change.  His first wife disappears shortly after the aforementioned argument, and Jake quickly picks up Vickie.  Their crumbling marriage is shown, but the film already gave away how Jake’s marriages end.  The other major relationship failure is between Jake and Joey, but that also plays out as an endless repeat of the same arguments.  The movie finally gets interesting once Jake retires, but until then I found the film to be an aggravating slog.

            Jake does show a little self-awareness at the end, settling into a life of small-time performances that pay the bills.  The film ends with Jake reciting the famous monologue from “On the Waterfront,” in which Marlon Brando blames his brother for his life’s failures and laments “I coulda been a contender.”  They’re fitting lines for Jake, serving to reveal how little he’s actually changed.  He’s still insecure and blaming others for his problems, including the person who probably put up with the most from him.  Before taking the stage, Jake does some shadowboxing to pump himself up.  He’s still fighting, but I was simply uninterested in the fight.

            Other Notes:

Ø  This film is based on the real-life Jake LaMotta’s memoir “Raging Bull:  My Story.”

Ø  As much as I liked the cinematography, I really didn’t like the slow-motion shot of Sugar Ray Robinson about to pummel Jake.  It evoked the same weirdness I feel when I see a picture of someone mid-swing in baseball or tennis.  They always look laughably ridiculous.

Ø  I feel sheepish giving this film a bad review.  It’s like I’m committing film lover blasphemy.

Godzilla (2014)

Released:  May 16^th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  Warner Bros.

Starring:  Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Juliette Binoche, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Bryan Cranston

Directed by:  Gareth Edwards            

Written by:  Max Borenstein

Personal Bias Alert:  anticipation was high, was very tired when I went to see it

7.3 of 10

            For the record, if Godzilla or something like him ever really attacked a city, I would want to be there to see it.  Preferably I’d also live, but I understand the risks.  It would be worth it.  It would be unique, a singular experience in all of human history.  I can imagine myself standing there, watching him use a building as a crutch, and being terrified and awe-inspired and probably paralyzed.  That aspect of my personality is probably what made me so excited to see “Godzilla” even though I had never been very interested in the other Godzilla films.  It’s a spectacle, and I’d much rather see massive creatures battling it out than massive machines.

            You would think the titular character would be the main focus of the film, but instead the story revolves around a Navy officer named Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson).  Ford’s mother (Juliette Binoche) died when he was a child in a nuclear plant accident, which Ford’s father, Joe (Bryan Cranston), is convinced was anything but an accident.  When Joe trespasses on the quarantined fallout area in order to continue his investigation, Ford must travel to Japan to retrieve him.  While in Japan, a MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism) awakens and triggers a battle between two love-struck MUTOs and Godzilla himself.  Ford finds himself balancing his Naval responsibilities and his desire to get home to protect his wife and child, all while avoiding getting squashed by the gigantic monsters.

            There’s many more human characters in this film, including scientists played by Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins and a US military admiral played by David Strathairn.  The result is a long and convoluted first and second acts which tease the finale battle to come.  They try to fill the time with character development and explanations of where Godzilla and the MUTOs come from, but none of it is ever very interesting.  The explanations about Godzilla and the MUTOs never adds up, and the character development is shoddy.  Elizabeth Olsen as Joe’s wife and Sally Hawkins are woefully underused, and Strathairn and Taylor-Johnson do little else but grumble about plot exposition.  Cranston and Binoche get some good scenes at the beginning of the film, but without Binoche, Cranston falls into a slightly over-the-top angry lunatic mode.

            While the focus on characters bogs down most of the film, it is a well-used device when it comes to the cinematography.  Many shots of the creatures are from a human’s perspective, resulting in quick glances of these massive creatures as they pass by.   It gets across scale and awe remarkably well and saves the full view of the creatures until the big finale. 

            Another saving grace of the film is its strong sense of humor.  Themes of man’s arrogance is played up, and we often look pretty silly as the creatures tear through our cities.  In my favorite example, we see Ford’s wife busily cleaning up the kitchen and telling her child to get ready for bed in the background, while in the foreground the boy stares at a news program showing astounding footage of one of the MUTOs wreaking a city.  That one made several people laugh out loud in the theater I was in.

            When the final act eventually arrives, we get the big Godzilla vs. MUTOs fight everyone was waiting for, and many inadvertently smashed buildings to boot.  The previous acts set up Godzilla as the one to root for, and even though that never made any sense, having something to root for does make it more satisfying.  When Godzilla finally stomps out of the ocean, in all his CGI grandeur, I couldn’t help but get excited.  He really is rendered beautifully, and I think we might as well call the Oscar race for visual effects right now.  No one’s going to beat that.

            Despite the problems I had with the film and the physical exhaustion I felt after a long week, I was constantly entertained.  The anticipation is like a cinematic shot of caffeine; there’s no way you won’t get excited.

            I’m tacking on an extra paragraph here, because I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the strange cultural appropriation going on here. Godzilla is a Japanese invention, a metaphor for the devastating effects nuclear bombs have had on Japan’s history.  That we as Americans (the ones who dropped the bombs on Japan) have embraced this creature, and now made our own film, is peculiar to me.  I can’t put my finger on precisely why, and I’m as guilty of liking this creature and everything it stands for as anyone.  But seeing Ken Watanabe, one of the most successful Japanese actors to transition into American films, inform the otherwise American/European characters that Godzilla is king of the monsters seems strange.  You see, king of the monsters was the tagline given to Godzilla in the Americanized version of the original 1954 film.  So a Japanese actor staring in an American movie based on a Japanese property that was created as a response to the actions that America took against Japan in 1945 is informing the largely American actors of a title America gave to the Japanese creature.  Do you see the appropriation rabbit hole this film is?

      Other Notes (Ridiculous Monster-Movie Version):

Ø  Does the main character have death repellant, because he should have died

Ø  Godzilla waits to use his blue fire power until he’s almost lost.  You know, because he likes to fight fair

Ø  Nobody notices the massive hole in the side of the mountain

Ø  Nobody notices that Godzilla’s still breathing?

Ø  Nobody notices a MUTO carrying a submarine walking out of the ocean and into the forests of Hawaii!?

Other Notes (Normal Version):

Ø  Why doesn’t Godzilla eat nuclear stuff too?  Why is he just hiding in the ocean instead of causing a bunch of harm?

Ø  Did you recognize that one army officer that had a few lines?  I did:  hello Richard T. Jones

Ø  This film has a weird fascination with children:  the girl that sees the water receding before the monster shows up in Hawaii, the boy in the train station, young Ford seeing the nuclear plant being destroyed.  The list goes on.

Ø  Mmm…nukes

Touching the Void (2003)

Released:  January 23^rd, 2004

Rated:  R

Studio:  Universal

Starring:  Brendan Mackey, Nicholas Aaron, Ollie Ryall, Joe Simpson, Simon Yates, Richard Hawking

Directed by:  Kevin Macdonald         

Written by:  David Darlow

Personal Bias Alert:  have read the book, fascinated by mountain climbing

8.5 of 10

            The current news coming out of Nepal makes this seem like a perfect time to talk about a mountaineering film.  For those of you who don’t know, the single deadliest day on Mount Everest occurred on April 18^th of this year.  An avalanche killed 16 Nepalese guides and injured 9 others.  The guides are now on strike, sighting low pay and dangerous working conditions, essentially shutting down the entire climbing season on Everest.  That’s a massive amount of money lost considering a summit attempt costs at minimum $30,000 per climber.  That’s $30,000 for the opportunity to stand on the tallest spot in the world, and $30,000 for the opportunity to join the over 250 people who have died on the mountain.  There’s something crazy about that, to risk so much to attain one fleeting thing.  It’s a craziness that I think pervades all of mountaineering and certainly plays a large part in “Touching the Void.”

            The documentary tells the story of Joe Simpson and Simon Yates, two young British climbers who, in 1985, successfully climbed the west face of Siula Grande in Peru.  This feat had never been done before, but the climb was even more complicated than they had anticipated.  Exhaustion and lack of water plagued the men when, on the way down, Joe fell and broke his leg.  Unable to climb down the mountain on his own, Simon was left as the only person who could get Joe to safety.  A valiant effort was made to get him down, but eventually Joe was left to either save himself or die.

            The format of the film is a mixture of talking-head documentary, with Joe, Simon, and camp-watcher Richard Hawking telling their stories, and reenactments by actors.  The reenactments add some great visuals, really getting across the scope of the situations the men were in in a way the talking heads couldn’t do.  The greatness of this film, though, lies in the unfalteringly honest way that the three tell their story.  They explain why they made the decisions they made, even when it shows a callousness or weakness they aren’t particularly proud of.  This prevents the film from falling into the trappings of a sappy inspirational film, which it easily could have been.

            In case you hadn’t gathered, Joe does make it down the mountain.  This isn’t a spoiler given that Joe is there talking you through the events, but the film never needs the added tension of a will he or won’t he live scenario.  It plays almost like a horror film, where a series of increasingly desperate situations force the characters to make more and more difficult decisions.  It’s easy for the viewer to imagine themselves in these situations and to wonder if they are capable of doing the things Joe does.  I doubt many people are.  He’s rather, pardon my pun, cold, unforgiving, and determined to make it out alive.

            Mountaineering is a dangerous sport, and many people may rightly point out that Joe and Simon put themselves in this situation willingly.  This may lessen the effect for some viewers, but that never bothered me.  I’m oddly fascinated by mountain climbing, and the fact that Joe recognized that he was in danger of dying while pursuing a wholly personal goal makes his motivations all the more interesting.

            It’s a tough story, which at times seem to go on forever.  I’m sure it seemed that way for all involved, but it does at times make the film seem a bit bloated.  Richard’s contributions add very little to the story, and too long is spent watching Joe stumble over rocks.  The repetition of Joe’s pain eventually numbs the viewer to it, at least until the next trial starts up.

            This isn’t a fun story.  It’s not an inspirational story.  It’s not a man triumphing over nature story.  It’s a hypnotically realistic look at what caused one man to push himself to the brink of death in order to live, and the tremendous amount of luck it also took for him to make it out alive.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Based on the book “Touching the Void,” written by Joe himself.

Ø  Some of the shots of the two men climbing the mountain are actually Joe and Simon.  They returned to the mountain for the shooting of this film.

Ø  Director Kevin Macdonald is a very prolific director, working in both documentaries and in scripted films.  Some of his other films include “One Day in September” and “The Last King of Scotland.”

Ø  “I thought I would be tougher than that.”  ~Joe Simpson. 

Neighbors (2014)

Released:  May 9^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Universal

Starring:  Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco

Directed by:  Nicholas Stoller             

Written by:  Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O’Brien

Personal Bias Alert:  not a fan of crass humor, not a Seth Rogan fan (do those two things go hand in hand?)

6.5 of 10

            When I saw the trailer for “Neighbors,” I never thought the film would actually be about something.  I went in ready for a silly, gross-out gag fest with a loosely constructed story to give the whole thing some semblance of direction.  Yet once the movie got going, I found that I was as entertained by the plot as I was by the gags.

            “Neighbors” stars Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a young couple with a baby who are settling into adult life.  They’ve bought a house and are anxiously awaiting to find out who will move in next door.  When a frat shows up, with Zac Efron’s Teddy as president, they are justifiably concerned.  As the noise level increases next door, the couple become desperate to defend their turf and end up engaging in all-out war with the young frat members.

            This is a film made predominantly by 30-somethings, and it shows in the film’s central theme.  I know, talking about themes in a movie like “Neighbors” seems ridiculous, but I swear it’s a prominent and interesting aspect of the film.  Each of the main characters are at a transitional point in their lives:  Mac and Kelly have started a family and can no longer consider themselves young adults, and Teddy and Dave Franco’s Pete are in their senior year of college, that weird time when you know that real life is about to hit you in the face.  Each are struggling with the inevitable changes, and the central conflict of family vs. frat acts as a perfect metaphor for their internal struggles.

            It’s an emotionally honest film, and that results in well-formed characters.  They all react to the changes in their own ways, and even wife Kelly gets her own agencies (I love that they didn’t sideline her as a nagging wife).  Efron, Rogan, and Byrne all play well off each other and generate some solid laughs.  Some of the other actors (Franco, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) weren’t on the same level, but it’s never too detrimental.

            Alright, I’ve gone on enough about this plot and character stuff, now to the humor.  I found the movie to be funny despite focusing on my least favorite styles of humor.  I just don’t find people getting thrown into a ceiling that funny, but there’s a decent enough mix of physical, gross-out, and situational humor that everyone should find jokes they can laugh at.  Some of the gross-out jokes were drawn out, which I didn’t enjoy, but that’s to be expected from this Apatow-based group.  I can’t say I laughed out loud much, but I was amused the whole way through.

            I may be in the minority, but I found the plot and the situational humor of this movie to be more entertaining than the improv bits and crass jokes that these guys are known for.  I have to give it credit for mixing it up, though.  I think this is a film that can appeal to a wide audience, and normally word of mouth would help a film like this stick around in theaters a long time.  Unfortunately, the coming weeks are chock-full of massive releases, with “Godzilla,” “X-Men:  Days of Future Past,” and “Maleficent” all coming out in the next three weeks.  I’m hoping this little comedy delight won’t get lost in the shuffle.

            Other Notes:

Ø  There’s a lot of shaky cam in this movie, and sometimes it was distracting.

Ø  I couldn’t find much information on screenwriters Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O’Brien, but HitFix has a good article on them.  Read it here:  http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/the-screenwriters-of-seth-rogens-neighbors-say-the-star-is-not-what-he-seems/2

Ø  The set design on this film was really strong.  Those two houses felt lived-in and age appropriate.

Ø  I apparently don’t understand accents, because I thought Rose Byrne’s Australian accent was a bit shaky.  Turns out she’s Australian, and that’s her natural accent.

A League of Their Own (1992)

Released:  July 1^st, 1992

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Columbia

Starring:  Geena Davis, Tom Hanks, Rosie O’Donnell, Madonna, Lori Petty, Jon Lovitz, David Strathairn, Garry Marshall, Bill Pullman

Directed by:  Penny Marshall             

Written by:  Lowell Ganz, Babaloo Mandel

Personal Bias Alert:  pro feminism, likes funny Tom Hanks

6 of 10

            “A League of Their Own” is one of those movie I always knew of, but it wasn’t until I was in college that I realized I’d never actually seen it.  There’s something comforting about coming to a film this late.  Its legacy and the fates of the people involved are set in stone.  Tom Hanks will continue an outstanding career, Geena Davis’s star will falter, Madonna will continue selling records, Penny Marshall’s directorial clout will fade, and the film will live on.  It’s earned a place in the National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”  Let’s not mince words here; it’s there for its cultural significance.  It’s a perfectly fine film, but it’s no work of art.

            Set in the 1940s, “A League of Their Own” follows Dottie Hinson (Geena Davis) as she becomes a star in the first ever professional women’s baseball league.  She’s not actually that interested in baseball, and only goes because her younger sister Kit (Lori Petty) is desperate to go.  Small crowds, demeaning outfits, and a drunken, disinterested manager named Jimmy (Tom Hanks) makes it clear to the talented girls that they aren’t going to be taken seriously.  Dottie and the others are smart enough to figure out the game, both on and off the field, and work to ensure that their league will survive.

            Plot summaries of this film always makes it seem more seriously feminist than it is.  Keep in mind, this film also stars Rosie O’Donnell and Madonna (who isn’t bad).  Its charm is in its broad comedy, in its insistence on laughing at the absurdities the women go through instead of condemning them.  That they were expected to leave their homes and families to play a professional sport, but do it in a dress while taking charm classes on the side, is ridiculous.

            While it’s a good story, the movie tries to cram in too much for one film.  It follows the women through tryouts and an entire season, with subplots involving sibling rivalries and war-torn families.  It drags on and on, and would have been better off with a runtime closer to 1 ½ hours verses it’s final 2 hours.  I think that this is one of those movies people remember as being better than it is.  You’ll think you had a great time, but when you sit down to re-watch it you’ll remember all the clichés and unnecessary stuff that drag it down.

            For younger people like me, it’s easy to forget that Tom Hanks is as strong a comedic actor as he is a dramatic actor.  “A League of Their Own” stands as one of the last in his string of comedy hits from the late 80s to the early 90s.  Over the next two years, Hanks would win back-to-back Oscars for “Philadelphia” and “Forest Gump.”  Here, he delivers a line that’s taken on a life bigger than that of the film itself.  “There’s no crying in baseball” is a phrase I’ve seemingly known my entire life, long before I ever saw the film.  Having now seen it, it’s a fitting phrase to pull out.  It’s funny but pointed, bringing up issues of gender expectations without making it uncomfortable.

            Other Notes:

Ø  This film has a ridiculous amount of montages.

Ø  Seriously Hans Zimmer?  You could try not doing the music for every film in existence.

Ø  “You think there are men in this country who ain’t seen you bosoms?”  That line is directed at Madonna’s character, which is some nice meta-humor.

Ø  Did they just film Rosie doing improve on third base between takes and insert parts into the movie?

Ø  Cast roster:  nice touch in the credits

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

4.5 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Haven’t read the comics, haven’t seen “The Amazing Spider-Man,” likes the cast

            “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” feels like a film battling between what it wants to be and what it’s expected to be.  Modern superhero movies have become dark, character driven affairs with interspersed explosions.  Even the relatively lighthearted Avengers universe is rough around the edges, making their characters prickly and troubled.  Gone are the days when a superhero traded quips with a villain, vanquished him, and went home happily ever after.  The problem is that’s exactly what “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” wants to be, but it exists in a world where audiences would be disappointed by such a simplistic story.

            This lighter tone is especially prevalent in the filmmaker’s interpretation of the Spider-Man/Peter Parker character.  He’s a laidback, friendly hero, which is refreshing in this era.  Other modern superheroes are cool loner types that audiences admire from afar, but this Spider-Man is someone you could fist bump, trade jokes with, and, if he was older, have a beer with.  Andrew Garfield is the perfect choice for this version of Spider-Man.  He’s good at being breezily affable, and it’s hard not to like him.  The other characters are old-school superhero stock:  either sweet, good people or crazy bad guys.  Dane DeHaan’s Harry Osborn is the only one with any sort of arc, but even he’s pretty messed up from the beginning.

            The main baddie is a goofy, derivative character named Max/Electro played by Jamie Foxx.  As Max, he was a lonely, underappreciated Oscorp employee with a crazy obsession with Spider-Man.  As Electro, he’s a glowing blue humanoid with power over electricity.  After an accident turns him into Electro, he stumbles around in a black hoodie trying to figure out what has happened to him, occasionally send out bolts of electricity from his hands.  This I referred to as his “Blue Emperor” faze, because he greatly resembles the Emperor from “Star Wars.”  His obsession with Spider-Man survived the accident, and when he first encounters Spider-Man as Electro, the needy fellow thinks they will be close friends.  Unfortunately, the encounter goes south, and Electro’s love turns to vengeful hate.  His power and control increases, and from then on he becomes a needy version of Dr. Manhattan from “Watchmen.”  All of this would have been fine if there was something about him that was menacing, but ultimately he just felt like a whiny annoyance there to distract Spider-Man from his other more pressing issues.

            These other issues are where the movie falters, overcomplicating the plot and trying to mix in some broody elements that never fit with the rest of the film.  Peter, you see, is having relationship troubles with girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and best friend Harry Osborn.  He’s also still confused about why his parents abandoned him with his aunt and uncle.  These subplots seem to be there to add in those dark tones audiences have come to expect, but they play out at such different speeds that the tone of the film changes back and forth from scene to scene.  One minute Spidey is bantering with a bad guy, and then two minutes later he’s having a heart-to-heart with his dying best friend.  The shifts started giving me tonal whiplash, and it undercuts what I think the film’s main goal is:  to be a fun Spider-Man movie.

            Considering I’ve spent most of this review complaining about tone, it should come as no surprise that the writing gets pretty shaky.  Writers Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinkner, all alums of J. J. Abram’s various television series, get the story across clearly, but sacrifice quality in order to do so.  Some of the plot points are simply absurd (Harry supposedly never looked up his father’s illness?), some of the dialogue is pedestrian (“I’m really excited about England!”), and the tone issues have already been discussed ad nauseam.  These guy’s careers have been shaky, but this is among their worst work.

            “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” battles with itself throughout, and the end product is a messy, unsatisfying affair.  It’s neither a fun Spidey film nor a modern superhero epic. Hopefully, the filmmakers pick one direction over the other for the inevitable Spider-Man 3, or they will end up with another waste of good talent.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Let’s break down the absurdity of the Harry Osborn subplot even more:  When Harry’s dying father tells him of his hereditary fatal illness, he says that Harry should start showing symptoms soon.  When he does, Harry goes off the deep end and thinks he needs treatment immediately.  Harry’s father made it into his 60s, so I think Harry had some time to come up with a cure.

Ø  Harry’s assistant tells him about a secret department of Oscorp that is off the books.  Harry finds out more about this secret department by pulling up files about it.  Not so off the books, huh?

Ø  Gwen thinks she has this special knowledge about the backup power grid when all she has to do to turn it on is flip the labeled switch.

Ø  Peter refers to Harry as his best friend.  They haven’t seen each other in eight years.  Peter needs better friends.

Ø  This movie would have gotten a much lower score if not for the ending twist.  It’s effective, but probably not good for the rest of the series.

Goon (2012)

6.9 of 10

Personal Bias Alert:  Knows nothing about hockey, likes violence in sports

            While I don’t know much about hockey, I’ve always had a healthy respect for the people who play it.  A more unforgiving sport is difficult to find; it’s incredibly violent, played on ice, and fisticuffs are encouraged.  As far as the fights, I’ve never understood why they’re condoned, although I think they actually exist in a grey area where they’re technically against the rules but are allowed to play out for traditions sake.  What I didn’t know going into “Goon” was that there are hockey players whose primary role is to fight and check opposing players to deter them from playing too aggressively.  Goon is a term used to describe such a player, and with that knowledge you can probably figure out what this movie is about.

            Doug (Seann William Scott) is an aimless young man with one very special skill:  he’s a hell of a fighter.  When Doug’s skill is put on display at a local hockey game, he is offered a job as a goon for the hometown team.  He excels and quickly moves up to the minor leagues, where a former NHL enforcer named Ross “The Boss” Rhea (an excellent Liev Schreiber) has been demoted to an opposing team to finish his career.  Rhea previously had a run-in with Doug’s teammate Xavier Laflamme (Marc-Andre Grondin) that knocked off the trajectory of Laflamme’s career.  Doug’s team pride links him strongly to Laflamme, and a showdown between Rhea and Doug becomes inevitable.

            Everything in “Goon” is a charming assemblage of sports comedy formulas, with familiar characters (a troubled but talented star, an aging hero) and plot arcs (will the team make the playoffs?).  A lesser film would have stumbled on the clichés, but “Goon” is imbued with a loving energy that makes it difficult to dislike.  The whole thing feels like a passion project, and writer/actor Jay Baruchel has stated that he wanted to make the movie after noticing a lack of hockey comedies being produced.  Using the book “Goon:  The True Story of an Unlikely Journey into Minor League Hockey” (was there really not a better name?) as a basis, Baruchel and fellow writer Evan Goldberg produced a lovingly silly script that makes you feel good even when it takes some missteps.

            And missteps there are, most notably in an inconsequential romantic subplot and in Baruchel’s own character.  Baruchel plays Doug’s best friend, a crass ball of energy that pops off the screen in a distracting way.  I’m not a fan of crass humor for the sake of crass humor, and the character has little other purpose.  He’s not onscreen too much, though, so his annoying nature never overpowers the film’s goodwill.  Meanwhile, Doug’s romantic interest played by Alison Pill fails to pop at all, and the whole subplot feels like an afterthought.  I remember very much enjoying Pill as Zelda Fitzgerald in “Midnight in Paris,” and I wish she had brought the same amount of energy to this role.  Although, to be fair, she isn’t given much to do here.

            Despite the failings of those two characters, Doug, the titular goon, is a pitch-perfect center of the film.  He may be a better fighter than everyone but Rhea, but he has an even-keeled nature that stops him from using his powers out of turn.  He’s loyal, decent, and sweet while still understanding that violence has a place in life.  I’m not a Seann William Scott aficionado, but I don’t recall him being this big before.  I assume he put on weight for the role, and that physical presence lets him believably sift around in Doug’s multifaceted personality.  The film itself is a reflection of Doug:  a goofy, violent contradiction that you enjoy hanging out with.

           Other Notes:

Ø  Can this cast/crew be more Canadian?

Ø  Read the Wikipedia entry on this movie if you want to see how many of the incidents are based on real NHL occurrences.  These guys know their hockey.

Ø  I mentioned that this is a comedy, but I don’t think I ever mentioned if it was funny.  It is.

Ø  “You know they just want you to bleed, right?”  I could write the entire review around that line.

Ø  I really had trouble scoring this movie.  It exudes goodwill, but its faults are too glaring to warrant a really high score.  Please note that it’s getting a very loving 6.9.