Man of Steel.

Review #1669: Man of Steel.

Cast:

Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Kal-El), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (General Zod), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Antje Traue (Faora-Ul), Ayelet Zurer (Lara Lor-Van), Christopher Meloni (Colonel Nathan Hardy), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), and Harry Lennix (General Swanwick) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and #1011 - Justice League)

Review:

"Am I a provocateur? A little bit. Is my job to make some pop-culture piece of candy that you eat and forget about the next day? Nah. I would rather fuck you up in a movie than make it nice and pretty for everybody."

What does one desire from a Superman story? Or more specifically, what does visualize when they hear the word? It can depend on what exactly sticks out the most in the world of storytelling, that much is for sure. Superman (1978) is undeniably the one film that stands out, this much is for sure. It still stands tall today as an influence that looms over the superhero genre. Superman, as we all remember, was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, having tried to sell the idea to comic strip folks for five years that evolved from a vagrant-turned-telepath into the sensational hero that touched the hearts and minds of numerous readers for several decades. Over the next few decades, imitators and media adaptations of Superman would follow, which ranged from radio to television to film, all with their own perspective of what made Superman the great hero that all look up to as the ideal, one that could be described as more powerful than a locomotive or a fighter for truth, justice, and the American way, and so on and so forth. Every adaptation has their perspective of Superman, acting as a reflection of the time and standards. Consider the Superman shorts that were created by the Fleischers in 1941 - not only were the shorts fairly popular, they also proved an influence in moving Superman from merely a hero who could leap from place to place to having him just fly (the reason? It looked better in animation). Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) aspired to look like those short films in its animation while downplaying the character's power to an extent, which resulted in an underrated classic. The radio series The Adventures of Superman (1940-1951) featured the use of kryptonite as a weakness for the title hero before it was absorbed into the comic canon in 1949. The 1978 film adaptation was the first to introduce the 'S' on the costume as a Kryptonian crest (Superman: Birthright (2003-04), written by Mark Waid as the second origin story for the hero in the modern era, would take that and have Superman's crest represent a symbol of hope).

That film seems to be both a blessing and a curse, since that film is undeniably still the best adaptation of the character ever put to film, as Richard Donner achieved the verisimilitude that he felt was needed to capture the reality of the comic realm without falling prey to parody. Don't get me wrong, this film is fine, but it is somehow nowhere near what the first film managed to do with its spectacle and mythic draw of strength. Man of Steel will likely reflects its era just as much as the original film managed to do with in terms of sensibility and effects, which for better or worse does what it needs to do in the job job at bringing the character back onto the screen after far too many years away. The easiest question is to wonder just how far the ends will justify the means when it comes to infusing a darker sensibility to the most famous superhero in the realm of comic books into a film. For some, it will serve as a necessary evolution for Superman in the realm of film, setting itself apart from previous iterations as a setting stone to further usage from an auteur in Snyder. For others, it will serve as a ham-handed, self-righteous puddle, one that thinks that Superman merely needs a bit of edge and a peculiar usage of the snap zoom to get their kicks and say to the world, "Look! Superman isn't an overgrown boy scout!" (a producer, leading the development of trying to make the fifth Superman film, actually described him like that) with no irony detected. Snyder, has his own perspective within comic book adaptations, since he was previously at the helm for 300 (2006) and Watchmen (2009), which each are certainly distinctive in the perspective of adaptation in style for better or worse (the latter adaptation is probably more polarizing as an adaptation). Snyder felt that the thesis of the character was one where superheroes can't knock things around without consequences, and he would follow up with two further films with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016, which also includes an Ultimate Edition that added 30 minutes of footage to make a three-hour cut) and Justice League (2017/2021; Snyder would do a director's cut to restore the film to what he had intended prior to leaving production), although his plan of a five-film arc that would lead to the full potential of the character would not come into full fruition.

There is exactly one statement that can help sum up this film: It's a weird achievement to have made half of a good Superman movie in one whole movie (while running at the exact runtime as the 1978 film - 143 minutes). It has an interesting picked cast, and it certainly likes to hone its references to the canon of Superman, this much is for sure. David S. Goyer wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Christopher Nolan. It is likely the boldest average superhero movie to ever come through this decade, but it sure is a useful one to serve as a contrast to what one might see from other films of its ilk in that time. Cavill had a few film roles under his belt, although his best known role was a lead role with the television program The Tudors (2007–2010), although it should be noted that he actually was one of numerous actors that had been considered for the earlier attempt at reviving the Superman film series a decade earlier (the same can be said for Adams, incidentally). He certainly does a fine job, mostly because it actually seems distinct from what one has seen before while inviting curiosity that had been sorely missing from the anticlimax seven years prior. Granted, it is a bit shaky at first, because all folks need to find their gravitas with confidence - there eventually seems to be something there in earthy promise, although it seems more prevalent with the hero aspects more so than with Clark Kent. Adams has some of the tenacity needed to play the character, although the spark of wit seems more prevalent in the first half of the film more so than the second, which seems more a reflection of the film seeming to stick itself a bit in technobabble, although at least it invites the idea of seeing the grounded elements of Cavill and Adams. Shannon is the final key piece of the trio with the hardest tasks, one where you have to believe in some way has a point even in madness. In that sense, with a warrior-by-blood attitude that is handled by Shannon quite well, fierce but never completely off the deep end that serves as a great overall threat. Lane and Costner make up the Kent family with okay results; one wonders how that perception differs with someone who had seen Smallville (2001-2011), but I honestly I usually forget about the Kents (minus of course one scene, of course). It is Crowe who seems more memorable at any rate, standing in the shadows of Brando (at least without cue-cards this time) with that smooth edge that gets a bit more mileage than one expects (Zurer on the other hand is a bit more murky). Others do okay in support, such as the hint of Fishburne in dogged persistence or Meloni and his tough-guy charm (this may or may not hinge on how much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hinges on one's favoritism list).

I will admit that there are quite a few gripes, ranging from playful to ones that make me roll my eyes. Zod make his first appearance in a film since Superman II (1980), and it will play right into a great trivia question of which Superman films don't feature one or both of either General Zod or Lex Luthor. They might be the most memorable villains in the Superman lexicon, but it still seems odd to not tap into further compelling adversaries (as evidenced by television adaptations of Superman such as the animated series and Smallville). Sure, they may not be as familiar in the lexicon, but it certainly strikes irritation with its choice of villain just like Superman Returns (2006) had done earlier (for the record, Brainiac would be the definite choice). At least you can say the film is a definitive vision of one director's idea of what the ideal of Superman represents. And then of course there are those two scenes that spark debate over exactly what should or shouldn't be done in a Superman story. I'm sure this isn't spoiling an eight year old film to say that the last scene with Cavill and Costner is the one that makes me roll my eyes more so than the death of Zod. There is a sense of hokeyness that somehow comes out in a show of trying to hide one's strength until they are truly ready that seems off-kilter. Heck, he saved a bus full of kids as a child, and the Kents seemed to have made that seem ordinary, so I doubt there will be that many shockwaves for a blur deciding to whip their father out of the way of a tornado (in any case, the death of one of the Kents is nearly inevitable in these origin stories). The occasional segues into non-linear storytelling will either help or hinder the idea of a layered hero story different from usual, so your mileage may vary. The savior narrative is the only other thing that seems more on the nose, and one can only get away with so much before it collapses in self-seriousness; it isn't the first time that this has been presented in Superman, since "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz stated how he fostered analogies between the story of Jesus with Superman and his father - you can roll your eyes at its attempt or just let it pass by with reverence/deference. By the time one gets to the climax, the thing that really draws on my mind is trying to make sure one has not succumbed to cut-scene syndrome within its stroke of action. The use of the snap zoom (i.e. a zoomed in shot during an action sequence) only will serve to demonstrate the duality of a director that can appreciated for kinetic action and style or ridiculed to the point that one can make a drinking game based on how many times it is used again and again. As a whole, it works enough in the basic department of taking certain risks with making a fair start to reigniting the flames of the pinnacle of all superheroes into film without bursting into a fiery failure or becoming a flamed-out mess of mediocrity, showcasing Snyder's interest for hard-lined realism in tandem with style and action to make a movie that will drive the curiosity of its admirers and detractors in the ways that matter most for as long as they make superhero movies that dare to be bold.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Midnight Special.

Review #1575: Midnight Special.

Cast:

Michael Shannon (Roy Tomlin), Joel Edgerton (Lucas), Kirsten Dunst (Sarah Tomlin), Adam Driver (Paul Sevier), Jaeden Lieberher (Alton), Sam Shepard (Pastor Calvin Meyer), Bill Camp (Doak), and Scott Haze (Levi) Written and Directed by Jeff Nichols.

Review:

“I never wanted to make movies just for me. I want to make movies that people watch.”

Whether through studio productions or independent ones, the director/writer can make their mark any which way they can, whether through story or aesthetic. Jeff Nichols, raised in Arkansas as the son of a furniture store owner, grew up with a love of films from directors like John Carpenter and Steven Spielberg. He studied at the University of North Carolina School of Arts, and it was a suggestion from his father to do a film about "a place you know that others don’t" that led to Shotgun Stories (2007), made on the cheap over the span of three years. Take Shelter (2011) raised attention for the director/writer, but it was Mud (2012) that fully put him on the map more in terms of notice. This was his fourth feature film alongside his first studio production, made on a budget of $18 million. Nichols was influenced by films such as Starman (1984) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) in terms of their structure and aesthetic when it comes to the sci-fi chase, one that aspires to have the viewer follow the mystery like his other films, even if it happens to have a bit more CGI than his other works. He had just become a father at the time of writing, and it certainly seemed to play an influence in his writing here.

While the film wasn't exactly a great success upon release, it is easy to see where it could spring interest as a hidden favorite. Sometimes you need a slow burn kind of mystery film, particularly one that takes itself on the road for science fiction within a family setting. It aspires for a bit of transcendence with quiet styling that keeps us in the dark to our own imagination. Sure, it is the story of a kid and other folks on the run, but it is the responsibility taken by Nichols to generate a curious story to come around to its own path that makes it at least good enough to glance across the aisle of interest. It might not be as great as its influences, but it certainly works just fine in expressing itself as a film about belief, whether that means one of a prophet, or of logic, or the most important one in family. The 112 minutes come out with fascination over what comes out to us closely without needing each detail spelled out to us, where a few effects can come along with their own interest and not blur the line of subtlety. One starts with Shannon (who has featured in every film directed by Nichols), who does quite well here in expressing parental devotion with worthwhile intensity. Edgerton doesn't say too much, but he still proves useful in rolling along with the mystery in quiet edge. Dunst appears on her own time as the last crucial piece of the main five, but she does worthwhile in showing reasoned grace with a part that utilizes her with effective quiet power in the climax. Driver does just fine with inquisitive curiosity, while Lieberher makes for a useful youthful presence to tie it all together with mystery that never seems to play to whims for the camera, while Shepard and Camp make useful support for brief scenes together. As a whole, it winds itself in mystery for involvement when it comes to a story about parents and belief within sci-fi trappings that ultimately will prove rewarding for those willing to come along for the ride for a careful adventure with interest that may inspire a sense of wonder, packing an ending that will at least inspire some discussion to it. In the end, that should prove more than enough for a good time and a worthy experience for a director striving to make a mark in storytelling.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Review #1545: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Cast: 
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Andy Hanson), Ethan Hawke (Hank Hanson), Marisa Tomei (Gina Hanson), Albert Finney (Charles Hanson), Rosemary Harris (Nanette Hanson), Brían F. O'Byrne (Bobby Lasorda), Aleksa Palladino (Chris Lasorda), Michael Shannon (Dex), Tom Zolandz (Junkie), and Amy Ryan (Martha Hanson) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon)

Review: 
“In drama, the characters should determine the story. In melodrama, the story determines the characters."

If one can say they directed 44 films, that would probably be enough to have pride in as a director. If one could say they had a handful of memorable movies to go alongside an Honorary Academy Award and some notice for stars that feature in those films, that would be exceedingly good to have. At the age of 83, Sidney Lumet created one last classic to serve a career filled with well-managed preparation and a vitality for storytelling with complexity and stature to go with it. Not every film of his was great, but Lumet managed to cultivate success and audience notice with films in multiple decades with films like 12 Angry Men (1957), The Pawnbroker (1964), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982) while still keeping busy with smaller films and a soft return to television (his involvement with 100 Centre Street was his first in 40 years). The film was written by first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson, who previously worked with stage plays before being inspired by "the folly of human nature" and his study in theology to write this screenplay, which took seven years to get it made. Lumet was attracted to the script (likening it to a melodrama as opposed to just a thriller) while also making key suggestions to the plot such as having the main two actors play brothers rather than friends in order to heighten the tension. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (based on a old Irish saying) was the first and only Lumet film to be shot on high-definition video (owing to less hassle) along with being the last film that he directed before his death in 2011.

Sometimes a simple plan of robbing a mom-and-pop store for easy money and easy solutions to the problems of two brothers just doesn't go the way one expects. Or more specifically, sometimes people are just brought down by the obsessions that wreak havoc on one's soul, particularly their obsessions. What we have is a family on the verge of a breakdown in terms of morality and beyond that captures the desperation one can encounter when greed turns into guilt. I think we all reach a moment where we think about what would happen if we could just escape from our troubles, where one must try to stop themselves from having envy over how the grass looks on the other side. We look upon these people and we see them as fairly believable types reflecting upon us regardless of however many bad choices they end up making, because the simplest plans can go awry just like that turn crime dramas into tragedies. It does this by spanning through different perspectives that will occasionally crisscross a scene we saw earlier with another look, which pleases those who desire such non-linear telling for the most part. Hoffman, generally known for his variety of distinct character actor roles throughout his life, does tremendous here in pulling strong will and desperate emptiness needed to encapsulate his part of the drama needed that would have been rough putty with less talent behind it. Hawke has an equally interesting challenge with his pathetic counterpart that he still handles with a fair sense of conviction to what he needs to pull here on his end to keep up with the level of desperation required without becoming consumed in languished pity. Tomei doesn't have as much dialogue, but she does well in capturing a lack of satisfaction and aimlessness with what she has when facing Hoffman or Hawke. Finney is the last key to come together in terms of this growing spiral in terms of hardened nature that sells those carefully planned moments just right, with his one highlight being a scene of attempted reconciliation that ends with a devastatingly executed breakdown in what you see in the margins. Of the rest of the cast, Shannon does nicely in those small moments of sad intimidation for a film all about people past their prime. It generally works out for 117 minutes in winding itself up in tension and bleak situations that looks upon consequences and lost values within oneself and family that usually hits the mark in keeping up with its perspectives that all build to a mostly rewardingly bleak conclusion in what it says and doesn't say. Ultimately, I would say it proves to be an underrated classic worth looking upon with its high-strung string-pulling as Lumet's last winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Knives Out.

Review #1306: Knives Out.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (Benoit Blanc), Chris Evans (Hugh Ransom Drysdale), Ana de Armas (Marta Cabrera), Jamie Lee Curtis (Linda Drysdale), Michael Shannon (Walt Thrombey), Don Johnson (Richard Drysdale), Toni Collette (Joni Thrombey), Lakeith Stanfield (Detective Lieutenant Elliot), Katherine Langford (Meg Thrombey), Jaeden Martell (Jacob Thrombey), Christopher Plummer (Harlan Thrombey), Noah Segan (Trooper Wagner), Edi Patterson (Fran), Riki Lindhome (Donna Thrombey), K Callan (Wanetta "Great Nana" Thrombey), Frank Oz (Alan Stevens), and M. Emmet Walsh (Mr. Proofroc) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi)

Review: 
To have a good murder mystery is to have something worth looking at once enough to want to see it again. Entertainment is one thing, having something that compels you into its little game is another, as is the intent behind Knives Out, which has certainly gained a bit of buzz leading up to its release. It sure is amazing to see something as wonderfully average as this proves to be, as if someone wanted to make the dumbest smart mystery movie. It does prove a bit irritating to wonder how much one can really say about a movie mystery like this without seeming like a spoiler hound waiting to bite. Whatever you may say about "subverted expectations" when it comes to movies, it also proves irritating to manage to make a farce as opposed to a real intriguing mystery on a consistent level. The fact that it does just okay with its ensemble cast should inspire annoyance rather than rapture, really. You could've made this with average marquee-sounding actors and nobody would shout to the balcony about how it was exceptional in its execution. But hey, what are deftly built murder mysteries for when you can have snide humor and creaky foundations? You too can hit for the low hanging fruit for humor and mystery if you have the PR push (edgy political commentary for current year flavor? Ooh, tell me more before I stick a fork in my brain and call it art), where using buzzwords for certain moments makes for okay satire.

It certainly has the style to inspire charm, and there are no real bad apples in the acting bunch, so that does tend to help the film in its favor. If you happen to be in the mood for eccentric family drama, this probably seems right up your alley, unless one is more into the sleuth and his southern fried accent. In this case, Craig is easily the best part of the film, amusing in his mannerisms when it comes to working out the oddities that tend to arise, never overstaying his welcome in any sense. Armas makes for a fairly compelling lead to follow when faced with the mystery and the facts that surround her, handling things with a dash of grace and confidence. Evans is tasked with delivering oozy charisma (while doing it in a silly sweater) for the film's second half, and he proves just fine with that in mind, where brash confidence at being the entitled black sheep of the family just comes with the territory. When it comes to the other members of the family, I find myself gravitating towards Curtis and Shannon when it comes to how they interact with the others in their family, for better or worse. Honestly, I feel like the film could've just focused on them even more, since the film doesn't even have red herrings or anything that would lead the mystery solely back on these quirky caricatures besides flashbacks. Plummer is wry and easy to follow as the center of this whole film for when needed that fits the film's bill to a T.

Am I so jaded that I can't appreciate the idea of a mystery that is ever so clever in not really being that much of a mystery? Sure, it seems to want to have cryptic seriousness, before it deluges itself with self-awareness that seems as smug in trying to be clever as having a character vomiting when they lie. Gee, I wonder if this will be used over and over for laughs. By the time the film tries to deliver on its payoff, I was thankful moreso because it meant that the film actually meant something to make 130 minutes seem worth more than just hearing about grandstanding praise for a film that teeters on being dangerously hollow. The film does have a nice look to it, seeming fairly authentic when setting up its story trappings, complete with plenty of knives. It seems cruel to nitpick at a film like this, because my fair expectations were met with mild entertainment alongside confusion at its ultimate execution. Sometimes you can shoot the target and still hit for average in the final tally, but I do at least see myself wondering what could come next from Johnson at least. Curiosity can prove rewarding for this film, if it manages to hit all the right buttons for those who seek it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Shape of Water.

Review #1061: The Shape of Water.

Cast: 
Sally Hawkins (Elisa Esposito), Michael Shannon (Colonel Richard Strickland), Richard Jenkins (Giles), Octavia Spencer (Zelda Delilah Fuller), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dimitri Mosenkov), Doug Jones ("Amphibian Man"), David Hewlett (Fleming), and Nick Searcy (General Frank Hoyt) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim)

Review: 
Admittedly, I can't tell which was more surprising: the fact that this was the winner of Best Picture (beating such films as Get Out (#909) and Dunkirk (#980) while also winning Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Production Design) or the fact that this came to my local theater in the middle of March, different from how I usually review films in the Theater Saga. In any case, enjoy a interesting case for Movie Night.

The world of fantasy can provide an outlet for creative movies on both a visual and story lervel that can have things just be what they are while dealing with subject that other genres can have shortcomings with. While this film may not be perfect with everything that it does, it is at the very least a fine achievement. It is interesting to note del Toro's level of involvement with this project, serving as director, co-writer, and producer, which makes the seem to be a clear passion project for him, and he projects that with an abundance of visual flair and imagination that works for what he intends - for the most part. I found that the film worked best when it showed off its characters and style more so than its story. Maybe it will go down as a great classic, maybe it will not, but I think it will at least find a place in the places of fantasy and romance people's hearts.

 It is evident that del Toro wanted his film to achieve a look that would sell his film as something to care for and appreciate, with Dan Lausten's cinematography along with Paul D. Austerberry, Shane Vieau and Jeff Melvin with production design and Alexandre Desplat's music, all striking at the chords for good effect. The main cast all do a fine job, with Hawkins shining in delivering a capable performance through the way she moves her face (since she communicates only through American Sign Language) and through her physicality that shines through and through. Shannon manages to turn what could've been just a cliche adversary and manages to make it feel interesting and useful to want to keep watching in a ruthlessly effective way. Jenkins does a fine job being the counterpart to Hawkins, being useful to watch. Spencer also provides a bit of levity along with sense to the film that helps give the film focus. Stuhlbarg also proves to be fairly nice in his role, and Jones does a decent job under all that makeup. The story by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor is a bit familiar in some of its notes, but it is at the least entertaining enough to make something worthwhile, having a fairy tale involving what is essentially inspired by movie monsters or arguably Beauty and the Beast. It falls into sentimentality at times, and perhaps it takes itself a bit too seriously, but there is enough drive and spirit to push itself over the finish line and succeed with elegance, which might've felt ridiculous or weirder in other hands. Are there moments in the film that seem a bit silly? Yes, particularly some parts with Hawkins and Jones, but also a bit in the climax (which I can't really spoil), but there also manages to be enough interesting moments too with the cast that makes up for it. I find the movie fine enough to recommend, provided that you are in the mood for what it tries to tell through its passion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

8 Mile.

Review #1023: 8 Mile.

Cast: 
Eminem (Jimmy "B-Rabbit" Smith, Jr), Kim Basinger (Stephanie), Brittany Murphy (Alex Latourno), Mekhi Phifer (Future), Anthony Mackie ("Papa Doc"), Michael Shannon (Greg Buehl), Eugene Byrd ("Wink"), Evan Jones ("Cheddar Bob"), Omar Benson Miller ("Sol George"), De'Angelo Wilson ("DJ Iz"), Taryn Manning (Janeane), and Proof ("Lil' Tic") Directed by Curtis Hanson.

Review: 
Admittedly, I don't listen to much hip hop or rap music, so I wondered if that would play a role in what I thought of this movie, which was released 15 years ago last month. The idea of a singer playing a version of themselves in their own film isn't a new thing, but 8 Mile manages to be an entertaining and engaging movie. It pulls from familiar elements, but it utilizes those things along with some fine performances in order to make something worthwhile. This happens to be the first and only performance for rapper Eminem as a leading actor, and he does a pretty good job for the climate of the film, which was based on his upbringing (while set in 1995), although the film isn't merely a biopic. He just reels you into caring about his progression throughout the movie and how gritty that road can prove itself to be. Naturally, his singing performance is pretty good as well, with some engaging (and crude but effective) rhymes. One of my favorite scenes is a sequence at his workplace near a lunch truck, where we see rapping from some of the workers, with the last one coming from Eminem, which is pretty amusing, actually. The climax with the rap battles is also pretty good as well, particularly the final one with a good sense of honesty to it.

This is a movie with a raw honesty to it that lends itself to not being a rags-to-riches story nor fall to pandering tactics. The fact that it was filmed mostly on location in Detroit helps give the movie a look that seems authentic and fitting. Sure, the film may be somewhat depressing and bleak at times, but at its heart the film has honesty to drive itself forward. Phifer pulls off a fairly engaging performance as well; the rest of the group of friends that are shown through the film at times (Jones, Benson Miller, Wilson) are pretty interesting standouts as well, giving a bit of levity to the drama that the movie pushes fairly well. Murphy pulls off her role with a sense of vulnerability along with passion that clicks pretty well with Eminem in the time she has on screen. Basinger pulls off a capable performance as well, with the right sense of watchability and care that you'd expect for a movie that is down-to-earth as this one is. The rest of the cast is fairly acceptable as well. The music in the film is pretty decent, and "Lose Yourself" is a key standout that is engaging to listen to. In fact, Eminem won the Academy Award for Best Original Song for the song, becoming the first hip hop artist to receive the award. In any case, this is a movie that does not allow itself to become too familiar or too easy to pigeon-hole with other musical dramas while being a good piece of entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.