Thor: Love and Thunder.

Review #1862: Thor: Love and Thunder.

Cast: 

Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Christian Bale (Gorr the God Butcher), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Taika Waititi (Korg), with Russell Crowe (Zeus), and Natalie Portman (Jane Foster / Mighty Thor) Directed by Taika Waititi (#1009 - Thor: Ragnarok)

Review: 

Do you remember Thor: Ragnarok (2017)? Well, it has almost been five years since that movie came out, so one could be forgiven for wondering just how there are now four Thor movies in the span of eleven years that all seem to be a bit weirdly different with interpreting its title character, as originally created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby in 1962. The previous movie was some sort of weird space opera pastiche while this one is a pastiche of adventure that was written by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. Let be me honest: each Thor movie has the unique experience of being watchable for once without really making me yearn to really see it twice. I think the original 2011 film was probably the most interesting experience I had with the main Thor films (the 2013 sequel is a blank), even if Ragnarok might have been the better of the films in actual execution (emphasis on execution, since it is likely the most average 8/10 movie seen in a movie theater). Of course, the renditions seen in the Avenger films are there too, but do you really count those? The fourth film has been described the director as apparently doubling down on the crazy that had been seen before in a quest for inner peace for the character, which Hemsworth has now played eight times. There are a handful of connections to other Marvel properties and potential ties for future things (which features the Guardians of the Galaxy), but I generally prefer to care about the actual title character rather than things on the side, because if I want to watch the Guardians, I would simply just watch Guardians of the Galaxy; in other words: I am trying to get pickier and pickier with what I see in a theater to use my time (it is summer, which means a possible pennant race sandwiched between finding ten movies that merit curiosity).

You know, if it was a movie about just finding inner peace with a quality villain for a tale that wants to imitate 1980s adventure in the vein of a Conan movie, one could be fine with that. Of course, in the search for finding some sort of feeling to fill oneself rather than nothingness, all that is found is a mediocre movie that you wish would get a grip and stick with one thing at a time for its 119-minute runtime. Perhaps this is unintentional irony, where the pursuit of inner peace is constantly interrupted by annoying quirks that refuse to simply get out of the way...which can be said about the directing style or the plot. Bale is the best part of the movie, and of course he only is present for about a half-hour, because the muddling mud of the movie means needing to shoehorn all of these other characters there to make it work without overloading itself for two hours (imagine the one playing the most listless character being the director). It may prove for some wild interest for those who are into what Waititi is selling, which is making a movie that presents spectacle without trying to hesitate in "ha-ha" moments of self-awareness and pathos...or it might prove nothing of interest to those who weren't already tuned to what had been done before with the previous Thor rendition. I am firmly in the middle in believing that the movie did prove decent entertainment while also being an inferior sequel that is average. Hemsworth does do well with what is needed in a mid-life crisis Thor in the best manner possible, which is to say that he still has the quality timing required for this role that he has cultivated beyond just being a beefy actor, serving his best Kurt Russell impersonation to suitable results. For someone who has seen plenty of destruction and changes (while only losing and later gaining an eye in all that time), his pursuit for some sort of meaning beyond just whupping people is at least something worthwhile. Portman was in the first two features to moderate effect, in that she was the one notable aspect of the non-superhero castmates before bowing out for a time from these kinds of films. Now taking elements from Jason Aaron's run of Thor comics for the character, one is reminded that she is a pretty good partner to rumble with Hemsworth, crisp in timing that uses her time in the mantle of Thor for a few moments in spectacle sandwiched with romcom that works for enough of it to make the actual endpoint...okay at best. One likes to see them together rather than whatever spectacle-ball could be thrown up next, especially when compared to something as clearly interesting as "screaming goats" or "knowing how rock creatures procreate" or "communicating with one's hammer". Silly is one thing, smirking at it is another.

Bale is the best villain of these movies because he brings a quality lacking in a number of these spectacles: humility and being more than just a name actor playing a special effect. It begs for more of him in the film, since he is present for basically ten minutes of the first hour (starting with a lengthy sequence to start the film) before it gets more interesting, as he brings a striking edge to a killer role with some sort of useful POV, one that looks for an end to his accursed situation. The fact that the climax isn't solely built on "effect-show" makes the conclusion at least makes the experience mostly worth it, as Bale has elevated a decently scripted role requiring effects work into something compelling (my favorite is him spooking some children who are trying to cheer up by listening to a story of Thor in conquest). Oh right, there is meant to be a supporting cast. This is where Thompson and Waititi come in, serving as mannequins that occasionally try to lend a hand to Hemsworth and Portman in relief. To be nice: at least they seem to be enjoying themselves? Interesting how the only useful one proves to be Crowe, putting on a Greek accent that fits the role in tremendous ego that of course isn't meant to be there for quite long. Sure, you could tease more of him later on, but it only underlies the point that some bits work better in actually lending charm or the feeling of anything than others. As a whole, it serves the spectacle crowd just fine while lacking that special spark in the element of depth or restraint to be anything other than an expensive mediocre movie, one that hopefully will not show signs of weariness when the inevitable follow-up lurks into theaters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Review #1627: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.

Cast: 

Russell Crowe (Captain Jack Aubrey), Paul Bettany (Dr. Stephen Maturin, Surgeon), James D'Arcy (1st Lt. Tom Pullings), Edward Woodall (2nd Lt. William Mowett), Chris Larkin (Capt. Howard, Royal Marines), Max Pirkis (Blakeney, Midshipman), Jack Randall (Boyle, Midshipman), Max Benitz (Calamy, Midshipman), Lee Ingleby (Hollom, Midshipman), Richard Pates (Williamson, Midshipman), Robert Pugh (Mr. Allen, Master), Richard McCabe (Mr. Higgins, Surgeon's Mate), Ian Mercer (Mr. Hollar, Boatswain), Tony Dolan (Mr. Lamb, Carpenter), and David Threlfall (Preserved Killick, Captain's Steward) Directed by Peter Weir (#960 - The Year of Living Dangerously, #1185 - Witness, and #1519 - The Truman Show)

Review: 

"Peter Weir's film is brilliant. An exacting, detail oriented, epic tale of fidelity to Empire & service, regardless of the cost. Incredible cinematography by Russell Boyd & a majestic soundtrack. Definitely an adults movie." - Russell Crowe

The sea epic is a tough task to get right, when you think about it. This is a film that spends over 80% of its time on the water that is an interesting curiosity: a booming studio epic that received notice from audiences but stands on its own sealegs as a stand-alone adventure (in other words, a film that a studio liked in counting the profits but not like all the way to go back again into the well). It's a shame too, because it ended up overshadowed by a certain other film involving ships and spectacle in the same year that inspired a franchise despite being adapted from a theme park ride (Pirates of the Caribbean). With this one, it is a loose adaptation of the Aubrey-Maturin series (named for the two main focuses in a ship captain and naval surgeon/spy, respectively), a collection of works done by Patrick O'Brien (who reportedly wrote his works with ink and quill). The British author wrote twenty complete novels over the course of thirty years (with an incomplete work at the time of O'Brian's death in 2000 being released four years later). The script, written by Peter Weir and John Collee, takes elements from several novels of the series, ranging from the first novel in Master and Commander to The Far Side of the World. The series was noted for their attention to detail with naval jargon alongside the depiction of numerous events that occur in the 19th century (primarily with the Napoleonic Wars), with O'Brien drawing from the exploits of commanders such as Horatio Nelson alongside research of The Naval Chronicle that dealt with detail about the lives and battles involving members of the Royal Navy.

What can one expect for a film that starts with a opening text that describes the ocean as a battlefield? Quite a bit, actually. We have a film that took measures to recreate a man-of-war alongside having a replica mounted on gimbals in a large tank to go with digital rendering (most notably with the USS Constitution, turned into a French vessel - incidentally, The Fortune of War, O'Brien's sixth work in the series, depicts the ship in battle) that certainly compares relatively well with Weir's previous output of work that was quite eclectic (this was his 13th film, with his next one being seven years later). Weir (who also served as a producer) knows what he wants from his actors when it comes to trying to make an engaging spectacle of leadership and camaraderie come across without lingering on cliché or seeming dull with its 138 minute run-time. It certainly is easy to see why an actor like Crowe or anyone with his flair for adventure would enjoy this film, because it appeals to the curiosity that a youth or an adult can have about history or strategy in leadership (in that sense, one could think about Star Trek, since it took inspiration from another sea-faring novel series just as famous with C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower). Granted, it isn't the kind of film that can be digested for those lacking patience or perhaps something more than the sea (such as say a smart mouthed pirate), but it has a great look and sound that really will make one believe they are in a 19th century ship trying to do the impossible. I don't think it sells each and every breath-taking moment, but it certainly will prove enough for those with the disposition for it. Crowe certainly grabs the lead role with the confidence required to make the film his own without suffocating it with brutish cliché or being overwhelmed by the sense of being the man of the moment that could be thought of as having the aura of a performance from a war film (besides, one of the most famous lines about every man expected to their duty for England came from Nelson). Bettany follows along with useful enterprise, one with dutiful interest that goes with Crowe in interesting sync with each other in terms of friendship that makes for a few stirring moments of interest, with the operation sequence (involving surgery on oneself to the look of his friend) probably being the best highlight. The rest of the actors do well in filling the spirit of what is needed in a ship adventure: stories to tell besides being on the cannon or clutching a post in water, whether that means strong quiet types like D'Arcy or youthful presences like Benitz and Perkins or established elder presence with Innes to carry the tension and leave the film on fine shoulders. One gets to see a rousing sea battle without too much warning for its opening act alongside cat-and-mouse tactics of ship faring and even a bit of time spent in the Galapagos Islands, and it ultimately results in a messy (in the right way) climax between two ships that closes itself with a hint for continuing pursuits in the sea without having to shake your head for it. It proves to be one of the unsung heroes of entertaining epics - interesting for those who like to see details and respect play out in a film on its own terms that leaves it to imagination for adventure that makes a pretty good time for those who seek what it wants to show with good reason.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Gladiator (2000).

Review #1524: Gladiator.

Cast: 
Russell Crowe (Maximus Decimus Meridius), Joaquin Phoenix (Commodus), Connie Nielsen (Lucilla), Oliver Reed (Antonius Proximo), Derek Jacobi (Senator Gracchus), Djimon Hounsou (Juba), Richard Harris (Marcus Aurelius), Ralf Möller (Hagen), Tommy Flanagan (Cicero), David Schofield (Senator Falco), John Shrapnel (Senator Gaius), Tomas Arana (General Quintus), Spencer Treat Clark (Lucius Verus), and David Hemmings (Cassius) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, and #1076 - Thelma & Louise)

Review: 
"I'm a yarnteller. My job is to engage you as much as I can and as often as I can. I love the process and still continue to adore the process, actually. I don't get attached to anything. I'm like a good antique dealer. I'm prepared to sell my most valuable table."

A director of many trades in genre can be a valuable voice worth seeing their vision. In the case of Ridley Scott, he has managed to do a variety of interesting films within science fiction, adventure, and drama. After all, Scott started with a historical drama in The Duellists (1977), a culmination of having spent years making television commercials in his native United Kingdom and graduation from the Royal College of Art (where he made his only short in 1965 in Boy and Bicycle). One surely must hope to find inspiration in paintings when it comes to creating something of their own. In this case, it was the painting Pollice Verso (Gérôme) by Jean-Léon Gérôme that was shown by producers to Scott that inspired him to do the film before they even handed him a script, as he felt that image spoke to him of the glory and evil of the Roman Empire that interested him in its duality of grace and savagery. There were three writers credited for the film, with David Franzoni having the initial pitch that became the first draft of the script done in 1998, which was inspired by Daniel P. Mannix's 1958 novel Those About to Die alongside reading history about Roman emperors while doing travelling across the world. Scott and Franzoni looked into films besides the traditional "sword and sandal" movies of the past, such as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) while citing Ben-Hur (1959) and Spartacus (1960) as influences on his youth Numerous re-writes would be done during the production, with even cast members providing input. A second writer was brought in with John Logan that dealt mostly with the first act and increasing Maximus' motivation through the death of his family. William Nicholson was brought in a little later on in order to make the main character more diplomatic.

There is a mix of history and fiction as one could expect from an epic that wants to stick out from previous films of its kind like The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964). For example, Maximus is fictional but is inspired by several figures of history. Commodus really was a loon who actually fought in the arena, although his end was strangulation by Narcissus (which was the name the first draft used for its lead). Of course it still quibbled enough with clothing and weaponry that one historical consultant hired for the film quit. I guess for me it is like Titanic (1997), with its attempts at sweeping away quibbles of history with intensity and ambition, which may work better or worse depending on one's preference for sword combat over romance (which is the case for me). The Colosseum is shown here as a mix of fragmented reconstruction of the first tier of the famed building for filming in Malta while using CGI (as done by The Mill) to finish the rest. Other effects to note involve composited tigers on bluescreen, mixing real and CGI for crowds, and a digital body double for Reed after his death in May of 1999 (at the age of 61) before his scenes were all finished.

Sure, Crowe (known previously for rising roles in Australia and abroad) may have had his trials and tribulations with handling a main role that requires brooding intensity and a tough hand without an immediately satisfactory script to start. But he manages to do well here, hefting the film along with dignity that commands our curiosity in resonating stature that handles a sword and others quite well as a noble warrior. Phoenix delivers a great intensity on the other side of things, one hungry for power and love with the talent required to make his presence quite convincing in all that is needed, particularly when it comes to the final battle between the two of them. Nielsen accompanies the proceedings with decent results in what is needed when doing a double act of protector and advocate with care. Reed does well with a crucial segmented role, capturing gravitas with appropriate gruffness required. Jacobi and Hounsou each lend a bit of measured interest to the proceedings within bureaucracy and combat, while Harris lends momentary experience suited for the first quarter of the film.

Undeniably, this could have been a long slog at 155 minutes with a lesser director (while also perhaps being thought of as a worse Braveheart (1995), as opposed to just being thought of as at least close to its level). But with Scott here, he manages to cultivate a tale of vengeance and what it means to be a man of the people in the time of mob rule that generally hits the mark fine. What we have is a film that blazes through brutality and spectacle without too many stumbles in plot detailing, where the experience of believing one to be entertained or wincing in feeling like one is in Rome is likely enough to win over a few narrative stumbles. On the whole, I quite enjoyed the film for what it aspired to do in a sword-and-sandal epic with capturing excitement and the terror that could come from making a mythic tale of Rome. Scott and the cast do well enough with capable effects and music to back them up enough to inspire further films in the decade. If it doesn't quite reach the peaks of the great sword films of the past, it at least does its part in setting a new century on a good start for film with worthwhile ambition.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Here we are again, the ninth edition of Tribute to the Decades. We welcome the 21st century with 30 films for the month, which I hope you will enjoy.

Movie Night: Cinderella Man.

Review #546: Cinderella Man.

Cast
Russell Crowe (James J. Braddock), Renée Zellweger (Mae Braddock), Paul Giamatti (Joe Gould), Bruce McGill (James Johnston), Craig Bierko (Max Baer), Paddy Considine (Mike Wilson), David Huband (Ford Bond), Connor Price (Jay Braddock), Ariel Waller (Rosemarie Braddock), Patrick Louis (Howard Braddock), Rosemarie DeWitt (Sara Wilson), and Linda Kash (Mrs. Gould) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas)

Review
Damon Runyon once described the life of James J. Braddock in one quote: "In all the history of the boxing game, you'll find no human interest story to compare with the life narrative of James J. Braddock." The movie attempts to make a winner of that story, and it succeeds. It's taken over 500 reviews, but I finally reviewed a move that has Russell Crowe, and he does a good job, he dominates the movie, but he does let the other two in the main trio of main actors shine, Zellweger does well, especially in the scenes with Crowe, and Giamatti is memorable, along with really talented. The boxing action is good, it certainly looks like a match, and the interior scenes look good along with it. The movie has an old fashioned feel that certainly looks good on film. The movie may have good boxing, but it also focuses on the downturns of the Great Depression and Braddock's family, and the scenes make the movie more whole, it doesn't bring the film down, it just gives it a new voice to keep on going. This is a good film that manages to be both entertaining and warming.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.