Man of Steel

First appearing in 1939 comic 'Action Comics 1,' Superman has become one of, if not the most recognizable superheroes around, right up there with Batman and Spiderman. He's come a long way in countless comics, even getting a 1950s TV show and ultimately feature films, starring Christopher Reeve, before disappearing for years (of sorts). Then, there was a 2006 reboot that the universe unanimously agreed was really, really bad. Well, it didn't take long for another reboot, 2013's Man of Steel. 

The planet Krypton is quickly dying, a father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe), saving his infant son by sending him off the planet at the last minute with Krypton's incredible power hidden away in the capsule. The space capsule travels through the galaxy, ultimately crashing on Earth where the infant is cared for and raised by a middle-aged farm couple. He grows up knowing he isn't quite normal, the young boy showing incredible feats of strength as needed. The boy, Clark, grows up and into his 20s and 30s, Clark (Henry Cavill) is still struggling to find himself as an outsider in this similar but ultimately strange world. He drifts from job to job, his strength and powers usually forcing him to leave sooner rather than later. Clark begins to find out who he really is as the years go by, all in time for him to fully embrace his superpowers. A survivor of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon), has finally tracked Clark down after 30-plus years of searching the galaxy. Can Clark embrace his true self and help save Earth in the process?

Growing up, I was a Batman fan above all else. I'm pretty sure as a kid I watched the Christopher Reeve movies with my folks, but it's been years, and I don't have a great recollection of them. When I saw the teaser trailer way back in summer 2012 though for this Superman reboot, I was more than psyched. The talent behind the film was evident, director Zack Snyder (of 300 and Watchmen fame) working with producer Christopher Nolan (of the recent Batman trilogy) and a script from David S. Goyer (who wrote the Batman trilogy) working together to bring this reboot together. And going in, I think a distinction should be made. This is a movie about how Superman came to be, not an established Superman saving the world. It is exactly what a reboot should be, an explanation of how an iconic character that most of the audience knows and how he came to be that icon.

The obvious place to start is with Superman himself, Henry Cavill, the 30-year old British actor cast in the part of Clark Kent. A relative unknown in terms of star power before this role, Cavill is ideal casting. I thought he did a great job putting a new spin on a familiar character. This isn't the jokey, smart-mouthed Superman. Instead, Clark is an introspective, intelligent and even tortured individual trying to find who he is in this strange world. He has some similarities to us, but he also knows there is something very different and potentially dangerous about him, his powers coming to light as he grows up and learns his true identity. Now I should say, I'm a sucker for tortured anti-heroes dealing with their own demons, but I really enjoyed a far more serious, more cerebral superhero movie. It's hard not to compare this film to the Batman trilogy in that sense, a look at a superhero but without that comedy and sense of humor to fall back on. Oh, and as for Cavill? He looks like Superman, like he could pick a skyscraper up, save a bus from sinking in a river. The physical goes a long way.

What surprised me some in the development of the character was the reliance on the father-son dynamic between Clark and his father, Jor-El (Crowe nailing the part, "huge surprise" there), and his adopted father on Earth, Jonathan Kent, similarly played to perfection by Kevin Costner. It's a surprising dynamic that develops, Clark learning through he is through conversations with Jonathan, but also talking with his long-dead father through Krypton technology. It's those little things that bring the movie up a notch or two, Goyer's script providing some emotional, effective moments that ring true, not false as Clark becomes what he must become. In a weird way in terms of that father-son dynamic, 'Man' reminded me some of 2013's The Place Beyond the Pines in how it deals with that tricky relationship. It works though, right from the start, adding a layer to the story. Yeah, we've seen a Dad helping his son out before in movies, but how does a Dad help out his son who also has superpowers that could save or destroy Earth? Surprisingly, it's not that different.

From top to bottom, the cast may not have the instantly recognizable huge names, but I think that works in the movie's favor. Along with Cavill, Crowe and Costner, look for Amy Adams as Lois Lane, intrepid reporter who may be onto Clark's real identity and ability, Diane Lane as Martha, Clark's adopted mother, Harry Lennix and Christopher Meloni as Army officers tasked with finding the truth about Superman, Laurence Fishburne as Lois' editor at the Daily Planet, an underused Richard Schiff as a scientist working with the military, and Ayelet Zurer as Lana, Clark's real mother on Krypton who must decide what sacrifice to make with her son. As the villain, General Zod, Shannon is great casting, his huge presence a big positive in this reboot, Antje Traue as his indestructible right-hand officer.

Reading reviews, listening to friends, what caught me off guard was the hate this movie received. I don't know why. If anything, I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe it's because I didn't go into the movie with any preconceived notions of what the movie should be, not being a diehard Superman fan. I came away very impressed from the get-go. The story is non-linear, bouncing around between flashbacks and the current time as Clark moves ever close to fulfilling his destiny. The storytelling device works, simple as that. Composer Hans Zimmer's score is big and booming and appropriate while the visual look of the movie -- polished, but slightly washed out, even faded -- similarly works very well. Even Superman's outfit is a darker, more pale blue, not that bright blue we've come to associate with the character. The action is solid, especially an epic showdown in Smallville, but I found myself more drawn to the story and the characters. Go figure.

In the months since the release of 'Man,' the franchise/series has been in the news because of where it's going. Instead of just continuing the Superman movies, the next movie will be Batman vs. Superman, scheduled for a 2015 release. I'm curious, even intrigued, but I can't say I'm excited. 'Man' leaves the story on such a good jumping off point that it seems almost a gimmick to revive Batman so quick and bring him into this series. That said, I'll probably go see it. If nothing else and not knowing where the franchise will go, 'Man' is a great jumping off point in itself. Lots of dissenters and haters out there, but make up your own mind. I for one, loved it.

Man of Steel (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Trouble with the Curve

I really like baseball. I also really like just about any movie Clint Eastwood has ever done. So naturally I should like a movie that combines the two things, right? Right?!? Yeah, that's what I thought, but it didn't quite turn out that way. I had modest expectations going into 2012's Trouble with the Curve, but it was surprisingly bad.

A longtime scout for the Atlanta Braves, Gus Lobel (Eastwood) has made a career out of being able to analyze a baseball player's skills and tell if they'll be able to cut it in the Majors. His contract is about to expire, just a few months away, and though he's unaware of it, the Braves are trying to decide if they should re-up with him. With the first-year player's MLB Draft fast approaching, Gus has been tasked with scouting Bo Gentry (Joe Massingill), a power-hitting third baseman projected to be either first or second pick overall. The Braves have the No. 2 pick so Gentry could fall to them, but Gus has a serious issue. He's starting to lose his vision but refuses to get any help. His daughter, Mickey (Amy Adams), an associate aiming to be a partner at her law firm, takes a few days off to accompany her Dad and help him out if possible. Their relationship is to say the least strained though, and both are working through some past and current issues, the draft approaching ever faster.

I really thought this was a can't miss kind of film. No, not an all-time classic that would rejuvenate my love of movies, but a good, old-fashioned story about family and baseball and all that good stuff. So as I mentioned, modest expectations, nothing more. Even then, I came away extremely disappointed. Basically all the reviews made a clear distinction. The script from Randy Brown is schmaltzy, sappy, too darn sweet, and oh so darn heartwarming. Everyone admitted it, but it seemed to divide the reviews. Some people said all those things and liked it (I didn't see many "love" reviews) while others said all those things and came away disappointed with a dull, cheesy movie. I'll give two guesses, but you'll only need one. Which camp do you think I'm in? 

It doesn't take a genius to watch the trailer and figure out it's going to be all of those things I mentioned above (watch the trailer below at the end of the review). I figured it would use that as a jumping off point, a springboard to bigger, better and more. Yeah, about that.....nope, it just doesn't happen. A movie that runs 111 minutes plays like one big after school special. A torn apart family, wounds still fresh and unresolved, a chance to come together and get a shot at some redemption, it gets tedious by the second or third confrontation between Eastwood's Gus and Adams' Mickey (named after Mickey Mantle). Mickey wants to deal with their checkered past, Gus a single dad who worked a lot and tried his best but really pawned off his little girl on family. It takes too long to get anywhere, it's dull getting there and the resolution is more than just predictable. You can predict it now. Go ahead, try it.

As the plodding story moved along, I kept waiting for this movie to get better. If nothing else, the talent assembled would make it worthwhile, or so I thought. It didn't. Eastwood came out of acting retirement to star here, but he's playing that same gruff, growling old man he's done in Gran Torino and any number of other movies. It's not a bad performance, just a familiar one that isn't particularly interesting. Adams tries her best here to bring it all together, a woman who's spent much of her adult (and child) life trying to adjust and cope with what happened to her as a kid. Her chemistry is okay with Eastwood, but far too much time is devoted to her 'Will they? Won't they?' possible relationship with Justin Timberlake's dreamy young baseball scout, Johnny. So Mickey is trying to help (read = save) her Dad, but her Dad is the one that's helping her out too, everyone learning a lesson in the process? Gag me.

Also look for John Goodman as a higher-up Braves official and a close friend of Gus, Robert Patrick as the Braves general manager, Matthew Lillard as a younger scout who's embraced all the stats of scouting rather than the personal analysis of watching a player, and Ed Lauter, Chelcie Ross and Raymond Anthony Thomas as fellow crotchety baseball scouts.

More than anything, I had an issue as a baseball fan of a baseball movie that doesn't know the sport it's writing about. The Red Sox are going to send an inexperienced scout like Timberlake's Johnny to scout the possible No. 1 player in the draft? And Bo is a five-tool player? He's slow, chubby and is supposed to be the next Albert Pujols? Yeah, I'm not buying it, the character an unlikable caricature. Those are all issues but nothing that would ruin a movie. That comes in the finale, a ridiculously forced ending that would happen in no real world of professional sports with millions of dollars on the line. Big, broad characters -- for good and bad -- and a story that's going to get where it wants to get, making sense be damned. A huge disappointment.

Trouble With the Curve (2012): */****

American Hustle

Although he worked semi-regularly in Hollywood since the late 1990s, director David O. Russell has definitely put his name on the map over the last few years, starting with 2010's The Fighter. He followed it up with the halfway decent Silver Linings Playbook, picking up an Oscar nomination while not winning, and if the buzz is right, he'll pick up another nomination for 2013's American Hustle. Will he? Will he win this time around? Only time will tell.

A self-made businessman, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) owns a string of dry cleaners in New Jersey, but that's just a front for his far more lucrative job. Working as a con artist, he sells forged art, pulls shady deals, but mostly he embezzles money from desperate men who can't do a thing because they're so desperate when they realize they've been fleeced. One day at a Christmas party he meets Sydney (Amy Adams), a goal-oriented young woman without the means to reach those goals. Polar opposites, they hit it off immediately, Sydney becoming an involved part of Irving's running cons, the money rolling in in piles. Well, it does for quite awhile at least. They've caught the eye of an FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), who rather than have them serve a jail sentence, enlists them in helping him run his own operation, taking down corrupt politicians looking to take bribes. Irving and Sydney know the plan isn't so simple, but they're left with no other alternatives. None of them know how far this plan could really go.

Two things came to mind when watching this Russell-directed flick, working off a script written by Russell and Eric Singer. One, it pays tributes to films like it from the past, embracing a throwback, retro style that plays well from the opening credits. Those credits are the old studio credits that a movie from the 1970s would have used, not the polished ones greeting audiences now in 2013. The style is everywhere, the big hair, the ridiculously awesome-looking suits as style changed in a big way between the 1970s and 1980s, the giant, spacious cars, the great soundtrack featuring everything from folk rock to soft jazz and everything in between, just the general look of 'Hustle.' It's like a modern period piece, if a quick trip to the past in the 70s/80s. It feels like we're in that fun to watch, visual and a very fun trip in a time capsule. Russell clearly spared no expense, and it shows, the atmosphere, the look (even in the background) all adding another layer to the story.

As for that second thing, it's the casting, a very talented cast from top to bottom. Having worked with Russell last year in 'Playbook,' both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence return here, both of them leaving their mark. Lawrence plays Irving's wife, Rosalyn, more than a little kooky in her conversations, beliefs and generally....yeah, everything she does. With Adams (vamping it up), Bale (chubbing it up), Lawrence (crazying it up) and Cooper (perming it up with an awesome hairdo), you've got an ensemble that should be able to carry any and all movies. And don't be fooled, this is the definition of an ensemble cast. Each of those actors are more than capable of carrying a movie on their shoulders, and they have so seeing their ample talents together in a single movie, it's a treat. Oh, and there's more. Also look for Jeremy Renner, comedian Louis C.K., Michael Pena, Shea Whigham, Anthony Zerbe, Elisabeth Rohm, Jack Huston, Alessandro Nivola and some actor named Robert De Niro appearing in a brutally efficient, uncredited one-scene cameo. Yeah, I guess that's a decent cast.

Heading into this movie, I had a general idea of what the story was about, an ever-moving story based somewhat loosely on a true story, dubbed Abscam. I don't want to give too much away, Russell's film covering a ton of ground in its 138-minute running time. It is a smart, well-written script that gives the cast a chance to show off their talents. Why does it work so well? It's simple; that story. Too often movies have to be about a gimmick, a message, about explosions, violence or sex. 'Hustle' instead chooses to focus on a crazy situation that keeps on getting crazy, all the cast getting their opportunities to step into the spotlight. It was refreshing to see a movie that's content to be just that; a good movie. The humor is never overdone, and there's a lot of it. I was surprised how funny the movie actually is, one laugh after another as this blackmail/entrapment scheme gets more and more complicated.

I can't pinpoint a weak acting performance in Russell's film, but for me, it's more than easy to identity the strongest performance here, and that goes to Christian Bale. Having already won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his part in Russell's The Fighter (also co-starring Adams), Bale leaves another lasting impression with his most recent part. First of all, physically he put on a fair amount of weight, giving himself a nice little gut, while also favoring a truly amazing combover. In a weird way, Bale just commits to his Irving's goofy, gentlemanly style, but it's more than that. He makes Irving a real flesh and blood character, and oddly enough, one of the more sympathetic characters around because he's such an accomplished con man. Backed into a corner, Irving is worrying about maybe 13 different plates spinning all around him, also planning 15 or 16 moves ahead so he's always in control, even if it doesn't seem that way. It isn't necessarily a showy role, but that's what I liked it. Subtle in his delivery, letting his physical appearance add some laughs. It could be a busy Oscar season, but I'm betting money that Bale gets a Best Acting nomination. I hope he does.

If there is a weakness, it's that Russell's film covers so much ground with so many characters that by the end, it drags in parts. They all know what the ending will be, what it will offer and how it affects all the characters, but there are stretches getting to that point that slow things down needlessly. By no means is any of that complaint a dealbreaker. 'Hustle' is still an incredibly easy film to recommend. Could it use some tightening up? Probably, but you'll no doubt enjoy this one. Lots of talent, lots of fun.

American Hustle (2013): ***/****

The Master

If this sounds pretentious, so be it, I believe it to be true. Some directors make films, not movies, and Paul Thomas Anderson certainly applies under that distinction. These aren't movies you sit back and laugh at or even simply enjoy. There's supposed to be something more. Maybe we're not supposed to enjoy them at all, just appreciate them. That's where I sit now having watched Anderson's 2012 film The Master.

A Navy veteran who served in the Pacific during World War II, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) wanders aimlessly with his life. He moves from job to job, fired by one or forced to leave by others. Running from one job to the next with no sense or purpose or future, Freddie stumbles onto the boat of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a well-to-do middle-aged man who most definitely knows his own purpose. Dodd has started The Cause, a movement that encourages its believers and followers to expand their minds and what they think they know. Freddie is instantly drawn to Lancaster, and the feeling is mutual. These two vastly different people have a common bond, a link somehow. Freddie starts to travel with Dodd's Cause movement, but those around Dodd start to question Freddie's motives, even fearing his violent outburst, and also begin to question what Dodd hopes to achieve himself?

Other film reviewers I trust and respect generally liked this movie while some even loved it. I came away.....disappointed. I say this for one, because I had extremely high expectations. Two, I thought the first hour (maybe a little longer) is a nearly perfect start. I was curious, fascinated, disgusted, and I wanted to see where it went. Then something changed in a huge way. Near the halfway point of Anderson's 144-minute film, Freddie and Dodd are arrested and put into adjacent cells. They scream at each other mercilessly, eventually getting their release. From there on in, the movie loses any purpose. I don't know what it's trying to say -- if anything -- up until the conclusion. An immaculately spelled out, hand-fed story is not necessary in my head, I like trying to figure things out in a film, but the second half of the movie felt wasted to me as if it didn't quite know where it was going or how to wrap things up.

There are very few perfect movies (if any) out there, right? It's always in the eye of the beholder. Individuals as an audience are drawn to different things. So while I didn't love Anderson's film, I can also appreciate that as a film, it is a gem. Anderson and Co. -- including cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr. -- elected to shoot in 65 mm, a throwback to Hollywood days of old when everyone now prefers to shoot in digital. In the visual sense, the movie is a masterpiece. The look of the film alone is worth it no matter how you feel in the end about the story or characters. This isn't characters having to act to look like its the 1950s. This truly feels like the 1950s from the clothes to the hairstyles, cars to the sets. Anderson's shots are full of depth, characters hovering on top of each other, full of rich colors that benefit from the old school filming technique. A member of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood did the musical score, an unsettling, moving score similar to his music from Anderson's There Will Be Blood.

Directing this film, Anderson is without question a freakishly talented director. This isn't a typical Friday release. 'Eh, what crap can we go see this weekend?' this is not. It is a self-assured confidence and talent that I'd like to think directors either have or they don't. I don't know if you can work to get to this level. Writing the script for 'Master,' Anderson is counting on you being able to follow with the story and make some decisions on your own. Freddie bumps from one job to another without a transition. He's there, now he isn't, and now he's elsewhere. Figure it out for yourself. Anderson's script never spells things out for us, and his story as a whole....well, it isn't a story. There's no real plot, no huge set pieces. It moves from one scene to another without warning. He has style though. That's evident. Beautiful long shots, extreme close-ups that linger on for seemingly endless periods, uninterrupted shots that speak to a more classical time in Hollywood, Anderson's got that innate ability.

For the recent award seasons (I'm looking at you, Academy Awards), 'Master' was in that odd category that earned acting nominations, but nothing else. There are flaws, but the characters are interesting if highly unlikable. Phoenix was nominated for Best Actor, but as good as his performance is, I got the sense it was just a continuation of the weirdness we saw on Letterman years ago. It's very good, but it's not the all-time classic performance some make it out to be. He did become Freddie though, making the character come to life, especially his awkward walking, hands on his hips. Freddie could have PTSD from WWII (although his problems seem deeper-rooted), but there's also trouble with his alcohol addiction, sex obsession, and horrifically violent outbursts. It is a character from the moment we meet him that we know it will not end well for him. Tragic isn't a spot-on description, but it sure is close.

Similarly nominated is Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, loosely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I liked this performance more than Phoenix, even though both are worthy performances. Hoffman's Dodd is interesting because we see the good and bad. He presents himself as this brilliant, philosophical thinker, but it's all an act. I especially liked the dynamic between Freddie and Lancaster, the two inexplicably drawn to each other. The third nominated performance, Amy Adams as Lancaster's wife, Peggy, is all right but nothing more. Also look for Laura Dern as one of Lancaster's loyal followers, Jesse Plemons as Val, Lancaster's questioning son, and Ambyr Childers as his daughter, recently married to fellow believer, Clark (Rami Malek).

Something fell short here for me. Every little thing doesn't have to be spelled out, and a non-linear story isn't a deal breaker. The second half of the story falls short though in a big way. It never goes anywhere, ending in disappointing fashion that brings the story full circle without any resolution. An incredible visual with some worthy performances go a long way, but there is simply some missing ingredient here that prevents it from being a classic. It needs to say something.

The Master (2012): ** 1/2 /****     

The Muppets

I grew up watching anything Jim Henson got his hands on....okay, maybe not The Dark Crystal or Labyrinth. But Sesame Street? Fraggle Rock? The Muppets? Oh, yes, most definitely. Fraggle Rock's basic weirdness excluded, I loved everything Sesame Street and The Muppets could throw my way from TV shows to feature length movies. So last summer when I saw a new Muppets movie was being made, I was psyched. Enter 2011's The Muppets.

Growing up, young Walter (voice of Peter Linz) has always been a little different, but he's always gotten along best with his brother, Gary (Jason Segel), who's planning a trip to Los Angeles with his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Gary goes along with hopes of seeing the Muppet Studios, but instead he accidentally hears some startling news. A greedy businessman, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), has bought the decrepit studio and plans to knock the place down. The only way out? Use a part of Richman's contract against him, but to do so, Walter has to reunite the long since departed Muppets. Can he find them? Naturally he starts at the top, looking for one Kermit the Frog.

It is clear from the script that he co-penned, but Segel was and is a huge fan of the Muppets dating back to The Muppet Show, The Muppet Movie, and yeah, basically anything with Muppets in it. Henson's creations have been out of the limelight for far too long if you ask me so there's a sense of nostalgia just watching this movie. The script actually plays that angle up as the old gang gets back together. Are the Muppets even famous anymore? Will anyone recognize them, much less welcome them back? Segel's script pays tribute to previous Muppet entries -- inside jokes, somewhat edgy humor for puppets, recurring gags -- but never goes overboard. Basically, if you have enjoyed watching the Muppets at any point in your life, something in this story will appeal to you.

While I feel ridiculous criticizing this movie in any sense, the positives outweigh the negatives for the most part. Why's that? Because it's the Muppets, and we get to see the old crew back together! Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, the Great Gonzo, Rolf the Dog, Animal, Swedish Chef, Sam the Eagle, Dr. Bunson Hunnydue and Beeker, and any number of other guys I'm forgetting. It's not a long movie so some characters get thrown by the wayside, but what's there for each is prime. Kermit as usual plays straight man to the antics, Miss Piggy loses her mind, and Fozzie is hilarious (as always). There's just a comfort level with seeing these characters again.

Now anyone new to the Muppet franchise should beware of wave after wave of cameo appearances. Cooper is hysterical as maniacally evil Tex Richman, insisting his henchmen laugh maniacally because he can't. Rashida Jones plays a maligned TV executive who puts the Muppets back on TV. Also look for Jack Black in a scene-stealing part as himself, Alan Arkin, Sarah Silverman, Mickey Rooney, Zach Galifianakis, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, singer Selena Gomez, Whoopi Goldberg, The Big Bang Theory's Jim Parsons, Emily Blunt, Dave Grohl as a replacement Animal, and Ken Jeong. And because Netflix/rental DVDs refuse to include special features on discs, apparently the deleted scenes feature many, many more cameos.

Brace yourself for the sacrilege. I have to criticize a Muppet movie. God bless Jason Segel and his Muppet fandom, but the hamfisted, forced story of his Gary and Adams' Mary is painful to watch. It's got to be hard being upstaged by Muppets, but basically anytime the story left focus from them to the humans....dullsville. It didn't help either that the song and dance numbers are awful. Maybe I'm spoiled with the original The Muppet Movie, but those original songs are classics. The Rainbow Connection does make an appearance here thankfully. As a topper, the new character, Walter, doesn't bring much new to the group. Still, this is a Muppet movie, and with fart shoes! Check it out HERE. The parts that do work -- Fozzie's Muppet cover band, Animal in Anger Management to control his drumming problem, the 'Muppet Man' dupe -- are spot-on. Too bad there couldn't have been more of those moments.

The Muppets <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

The Fighter

Of all the actors currently working in movies, one of my favorites is Mark Wahlberg. The first movie I saw him in was 1999's Three Kings, and I was immediately a fan.  Over the years then, I've been surprised to read and hear all the hate directed toward him. Some of it you can chalk up to his Marky Mark days, others to his limited range as an actor. Is he Pacino or De Niro? No, few people in the world have that ability, but he's an underrated actor. Partially I'm a fan because he's likable and always consistent, but also because his choice of movies is typically very audience-friendly.

Criticize him all you want for a limited acting range, but he delivered his best performance yet in 2010's The Fighter. It is a performance that was overshadowed by two other parts in the movie, both of whom won Academy Awards for their supporting roles, but he gets a chance to show off his acting chops and doesn't disappoint.  I'm more or less making Wahlberg-hater fans' point because he does play a similar character to one he's played several times before.  But you know what? He's good at it, and in telling the true story of boxer Micky Ward, Wahlberg does a great job bringing his character to life.

A boxer in his late 20s, Micky Ward (Wahlberg) out of Lowell, Massachusetts is at a bit of a crossroads in his life.  He's a good boxer who has potential but has never really amounted to anything.  Part of the problem is his family, dragging him down at all times even though they claim to be in his corner, always ready to support him.  First, there's Dicky (Christian Bale), his half-brother and trainer who struggles with his addiction to crack. A great boxing mind and strategist, but completely unreliable. Second, there's his mother, Alice (Melissa Leo), a completely self-serving woman who says she has his best interest at heart, but that's clearly not the case. Struggling through all these family problems, Micky meets Charlene (Amy Adams), a bartender he hits it off with. But when push comes to shove, Micky is going to have to make a decision, go for what's best for him or what's best for his family?  

As a warning going in, I feel like I should warn people about this movie.  As a sports fan, I got the impression this was a heavy boxing story which it isn't.  Yes, there is boxing, but it's more a part of the story than actually being the story.  Just so there's no confusion, I'm not comparing it to Raging Bull, but in terms of storytelling it is similar.  The boxing is a way to get somewhere, but it isn't a "boxing movie."  The Fighter is more about family and the struggles you go through at times putting up with them, loving them, fighting and arguing with them.  They may be bad for you and your life, but they're your family. How do you get away or turn away from your family?  As Micky finds out, it is no easy task.

Just a few months ago at the Academy Awards, Bale and Leo made news as they won Oscars for the best supporting actor and actress awards, respectively.  Of the two, I think Bale was more deserving for the win, but they both deserved it.  If anything, I would have given Supporting Actress to Amy Adams, but that's just me.  Ever since his ridiculous outburst on the set of Terminator Salvation, I've been an iffy fan of Bale's, but all personal feelings aside, the guy can act.  This is one of those performances where you watch it and just know this is what acting is all about.  His Dicky Eklund is a mess of a person, all of it to blame on himself, who had all sorts of potential but instead derailed his life.  Leo as Alice is the same way, a hypocrite on so many levels who can't even see what she's doing to her son, Micky.  These are the flashier performances, not quite Oscar bait, but close.

The heart of the movie though is Wahlberg as Micky Ward, a boxer teetering on the brink of a has-been and a never will be.  There's that underdog element to the character and the man, the fighter from the lower middle class family rising above his surroundings to amount to something...hopefully.  He wants to make it on the big time, wants to be the best fighter he can be.  At the same time, he feels an obligation to his family even as they drag him down, holding him back from achieving all the things he wants.  His relationship with Adams' Charlene -- similarly troubled, similarly wanting something more out of life -- is key as these two individuals find some sort of happiness together through each other.  They have a great chemistry together even though going in I thought Adams was an odd, somewhat interesting choice to play the character. My bad, I was wrong.  Other supporting parts include Jack McGee as Micky's father, George, and Mickey O'Keefe playing himself as Micky's trainer/mentor as he rises through the boxing ranks.

Watching clips of the movie, reading reviews, watching the trailer repeatedly, I wasn't sure what to expect going into the movie.  It's by no means a flashy sports movie, and I debate even calling it a sports movie.  It is about the people, their relationships and interactions, the day to day struggles to get along and survive with yourself and your family.  This is an acting movie from Wahlberg to Bale to Leo to Adams.  Director David O. Russell knows what he's doing and presents a real, moving story that feels like a throwback to movies of old, something right out of the 1970s (and I mean that in a good way).

The Fighter <---trailer (2010): ***/****