I cannot believe no one is mentioning Cinderella Man. Russell Crowe does the most amazing job of his career. I laughed and cried and appreciated what I had. The entire cast especially Renee Zelwigger (ok I cant spell) were incredible. The manager, the little girl oh my god what a wonderful movie I have seen it 3 times. I think this movie should win best movie, best actor and best supporting actor... hands down.

Cinderella Man was a very good movie all around. I think all the acting was great, and it was Ron Howard's grittiest direction to date. It will make my Top Ten. It had some baggage because of Crowe's recent troubles with the law (a never-ending story?) and a Ron Howard backlash, but it's a solid film. At least expect Paul Giamatti to get a best supporting actor nom.

The thing about Ron Howard though is..he has this habit of taking real people and turning them into Ghandi.

If anybody's read Beautiful Mind, and then watched Beautiful Mind...you know what I mean.

Have you seen Cinderella Man, or is this another I-know-more-than-you-do-because-I-haven't-seen-it goodie? I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just pointing out "The Way (Weight) of the World", no matter how obviously.

I just recently saw it for the first time and I was impressed with the acting, but I found some of the other aspects to be a bit too… “okay, here’s the part that tugs at the ol’ heart strings”… “okay, here’s the part where you wish the bad guy would be taught a lesson of a life time”… “okay, here’s where you realize… blah, blah, blah”

I enjoyed the movie, but it felt “over the top” in too many places. Baer was an asshole that had no human qualities whatsoever… and Braddock was so good and so proud that he almost chose to sentence his children to death rather than send them to the care of other able family members.

I don’t know; for a film that depicted actual events… it felt like a fairytale. I suppose the movie’s title is an omen for those expecting a “believable” retelling.

I think Ron Howard is paying too much attention to Spielberg’s school of handholding the audience through emotional situations. Let me, the viewer, clumsily stumble to my own conclusions about how horrible a situation might be… (pan to wooden toy in front a dwindling fire; the only source of heat for the household; the only hope of life for the family… pause the camera, let the idea sink in, just a little longer for those who don't catch on right away… okay, good! Next scene) …thanks, Ron.

It’s a good movie that I never need to see again.

You see, I've said this often. People's criticisms of others usually tell the readers more about the criticiser than the criticisee. That doesn't mean that some things aren't valid, but go ahead, and TRY to tell me I'm wrong, criticiser(s)!!

I never said it wasn't a solid film. I just think if you're making an autobiographical story you should present the characters as they were and not as these super-idealized people as if you're commanding the audience: "YOU! LIKE THIS PERSON! NOW!"

And villains who are just mean for the sake of mean and evil for the sake of evil are impossible for me to take seriously as villains.

Since when have I ever implied I know better than anybody else? Every time I have a negative opinion about something you like that I haven't spent as much time on as you, you basically act like I'm making some sort of supreme affront when I state that opinion.

All I'm saying, I would much rather see a movie about John Nash, or anybody, that is more honest about the person's real character. If you're not going to show a person like he is, you should tell your story with a fictional character.

"Honesty" is all very "subjective". I agree that some truth can be agreed upon, but the longer you live in this Internet Life, the more you'll understand that NO movie is objective and no director gives you "honest film interpretations."

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
"Honesty" is all very "subjective". I agree that some truth can be agreed upon, but the longer you live in this Internet Life, the more you'll understand that NO movie is objective and no director gives you "honest film interpretations."

I completely agree… that’s why I try to spend time in Real Life as much as possible; Internet Life ruins the façade of objectivity and honesty. ;-)

But seriously if I understand you correctly, Mark… you’re saying that anticipating honesty (being a largely subjective term and a quality arguably never truly attained) in film could easily put one’s expectations too high to truly enjoy an exceptional piece of cinema. I can’t argue with that logic, but even you have to admit that Braddock’s character had NO objectionable flaws and Baer’s had way too many. (Was Braddock really a saint? Was Baer truly a bad person who succumbed to the evils of fame? The movie would have you believe that.) Some people can look past that… some can’t… and some (like me) CHOOSE not to.

As I said earlier, I really enjoyed the acting in this movie, but I felt confined by the directing to feel a certain “way” at certain “moments”. I don’t like that. (I thought MOST of the characters were bastardized in one way or another to achieve the director’s desired viewer emotional state.) I found it to be a huge distraction. I expect the movie to do well in being nominated and winning awards in the realm of all things related to acting, but I don’t expect any wins in the screenplay and directing areas (despite “token” nominations).

Yes...it's a perfectly fine movie, just with that stylistic issue that bothers me about Howard movies.

I apologize for sounding like I was trying to make a stronger statement than I really was in my initial post.

A lot of people love this movie, and god knows Howard and Grazer would love everyone to see this movie and for CM to garner oodles of awards, but I for one just did not get it.

1) Perhaps the most boring and uncompelling boxing movie I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of boxing movies. Yes, a big fight, an evil opponent, but I could not have been less interested about the boxing aspect of this movie. Perhaps it was that while boxing was certainly a part of the story, it was not an integral component of Braddock as a character, and was not clearly Braddock's raison d'etre.

Put CM against, say "Million Dollar Baby," where tension and character development are intertwined within the boxing sequences, and there is no comparison. Even some of the horrible "Rocky" sequels had at least a flicker of excitement and purpose in the boxing matches. In CM, what was Braddock fighting for? To not be poor? Big deal. Explored slightly, but not compelling enough to keep me interested in the boxing scenes. Even if Braddock had lost to Baer, he still would have been well off. And the "death in the ring" stuff was simply overplayed.

In short, I found the movie to be about a guy who boxes for reasons I could care less about, and thus his boxing quest was ultimately uncompelling.

2) **Minor Spoiler Alert** Much is made of the "triumph of the common man" aspect of CM, but in reality (at least as portrayed), Jim Braddock's life was, well...boring. So he had a wife and kids, so he and his family had it tough during the depression, so he gave back his welfare money...so what? Possibly the most boring cinema boxing character I've seen. The high standard in the last 40 or so years for common man triumph via boxing would probably be "Rocky," but Rocky had nothing, fought to be something and for credibility, and laid it all on the line for the big fight. Braddock wanted to fight to make money. Not interesting.

Don't get me wrong - I thought the performances were excellent, including Crowe (it is difficult to play a boring character), Giamatti, and even Zellweger.

But CM is a story about a relatively uninteresting guy who wins the world boxing championship because he didn't want to be peniless. No matter how many trumpets you sound, I am not interested in an ordinary guy who has something extraordinary happen to him unless there is some reason to like him or his quest. And I did not find either interesting here.

I've always liked Ron Howard. Even though he was Opie, I don't let it taint his film credits, he has wonderful vision and most of his films I love. I have yet to see this though despite amazing reviews from just about everyone I know.

quote:

I enjoyed the movie, but it felt “over the top” in too many places. Baer was an asshole that had no human qualities whatsoever… and Braddock was so good and so proud that he almost chose to sentence his children to death rather than send them to the care of other able family members.

I enjoyed the movie, but it felt “over the top” in too many places. Baer was an asshole that had no human qualities whatsoever… and Braddock was so good and so proud that he almost chose to sentence his children to death rather than send them to the care of other able family members.