The Fighter

"The Fighter" was directed by David O. Russell.  It stars Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, and Amy Adams.

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a boxer.  His half brother, Dicky Eklund (Christian Bale) used to be one of the best boxers in Lowell, Massachusetts, but that got ruined when he became a crack addict and served some prison time.  When Dicky is not in prison and semi-sober he helps Micky become phenomenal.  Amy Adams plays Charlene, a barmaid and the object of Micky's affections.


The three leads are phenomenally talented and work beautifully with each other.  Mark Wahlberg plays a darn good boxer and has great scenes with Christian Bale and Amy Adams.  Christian Bale, as a crack addict steals every scene he is in, and may actually win an Oscar for the role.  Quite a long ways away from Batman.  He lost tons of weight and completely became his character.  And finally, Amy Adams, three years ago played a Disney princess in "Enchanted" and after "The Fighter" it is guaranteed she will never ever in the history of her life be typecast.  She's tough, curses, and is very strong willed and has quite an attitude on her.  It is quite a joy to watch.

"The Fighter" looks beautiful.  There are great on location shots in Lowell, Massachusetts as well as impressive camera work and editing in the boxing scenes in the film.  Also, the framing of the actors also is well done, with a lot of panning back and forth during conversations between Dicky and Micky, and other characters.  Character interactions were extremely important in this film, so this kind of camera work benefitted the film.

The actresses who played Dicky and Micky's seven sisters were extremely annoying.  I'm just calling it like it is.  It's like white trash and incessant chattering, and I was not a fan.  Also, for some reason I didn't like the music most of the time.  Sometimes it worked alright and other times it was really awkward sounding.  However, I did love how sometimes music would be coming from a car radio or something and it sounding like it was just background music.

If you are expecting tons of boxing scenes, be warned, there are only about four or five.  The main focus of the film is the interactions between the three main characters, mainly the two brothers and their family.  "The Fighter" is much more that a sports movie, just a heads up.  This may turn people off, such as the unbelievably annoying people next to me who got bored and chatty and walked out after a half hour.  Maybe they should just wait a month and see "Drive Angry 3D"...I'm sure Nicolas Cage would love that.

Another random thing I feel like mentioning: "The Fighter" definitely wasn't a long movie, but at times, especially in the middle it became hard for me to follow. Other times it felt like scenes could have been slightly trimmed.  That could just be my ADD kicking in...you never know.

I love Oscar season.  It is the most wonderful time of the year.  So many great films to be seen.  Yes, that  includes "The Fighter."  It's a great true story, brought to screen in a well made film, with great acting by the leads.  Once again I sense a lot of Oscar nominations and possibly a couple wins.  If you enjoy any of the actors, sports movies, or quality movies in general, then by all means go to your nearest theater and pay rip-off prices for a night full of wonder and cinema. 3 out of 4 stars...somewhere around there....these star things are hard to figure sometimes.


-Joseph Sbrilli

The King's Speech

"The King's Speech" was directed by Tom Hooper.  It stars Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham-Carter.

Prince Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth) becomes King George VI after his father, King George V dies and his brother, King Edward VIII gives up the throne in order to marry a twice divorced woman.  Prince Albert at first isn't a huge fan of this because he has a huge stammer.  This makes it quite difficult to give speeches over the radio, or elsewhere, like a good king of England should in the 1930s.  Luckily for him his wife, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) loves him to death and finds Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), the greatest speech therapist the world has ever known.  Initially Albert thinks it is useless to have speech therapy, by Lionel Logue convinces him otherwise and they embark on a journey full of speech and friendship.

The acting in this movie is incredible...mainly the principle three actors, who are simply a joy to watch and bursting with talent.  I sense acting nominations all around for this film.  Colin Firth just becomes Prince Albert/King George VI.  It's amazing.  He has the stutter down perfectly and it seems to come naturally to him.  He is convincing as the King of England at the time, someone who at first is scared of the responsible of leading a nation while not being able to articulate himself fluidly and without stutters and hesitations.  This fear combines with a general lack of self image which occasionally turns into anger.  When all is said and done we have ourselves a man, confident in leading a country, and giving a darn good radio speech.  Each part of the transformation is done exceptionally well by Colin Firth, who makes it hard to envision anyone else in the role.  It was really nice to see Colin Firth in something other than "Mamma Mia!", since Pierce Brosnan sang in it and ruined everything beautiful about the world.  Colin Firth has believable chemistry with Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham-Carter.  Both of these are also great actors.  I had only seen Geoffrey Rush in the first couple "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies and I didn't really think much of him, because those movies got ridiculous.  However, after "The King's Speech," I love him quite a lot.  He worked perfectly with Colin Firth.  Each actor complimented the other perfectly and they were able to play off each other well, making for memorable scenes and several funny lines.  Rush as Lionel Logue would not give up on King George VI, and as a result the two real life men formed a life long friendship.  Finally, I was pleased to see Helena Bonham-Carter play a normal role.  I am so used to seeing her in Tim Burton movies, or in roles that are similar in their creepiness.  She has a lot of range as an actress and plays royalty quite well.  Elizabeth's love and dedication to George was admirable and came off as perfectly realistic.

The cinematography in "The King's Speech," almost overshadows the brilliant acting.  It comes pretty close.  The art direction, lighting, camera work, and editing all combine to form a truly beautiful film.  The cinematography is some of the best that I have seen this year in theaters, or in general.  I won't even be able to do it justice in this paragraph because I didn't take notes on specific parts of the film, so I'll do the best that I can.  Firstly, the sets were created incredibly well.  In a period piece, such as this, set design is one of the major factors that give a realistic look to the film.  Each building, room, piece of furniture, clothing, etc., comes off as something that would have actually been in England in the 1930s.  Of course I am no expert on English decor of the 1930s, but I was visually very impressed in this regard and feel like the Academy, as big a scam as it seems like sometimes, will be too.  The lighting and color of the sets and costumes also greatly add to the film.  The majority of the film has generally flat lighting, with the occasional character in harsh shadow.  The colors are dull, with browns, greens, etc. being prevalent.  The last seen of the film, after the successful speech, the lighting got much brighter, kind of as a sign of success.  This counteracting nicely with the duller, flatter colors being present mostly in the beginning of the film.  Also, throughout the film they are several instances where a person, or part of a scene would be out of focus, adding to the visual appeal.  Camera-wise there are some beautiful shots that I wish I could remember specifically.  They are gorgeous aerial shots in buildings, shots that make certain characters appear to be the dominant figures in a scene, and just well composed shots, and unique perspectives.  The film is worth it solely for the beautiful visuals. 

The score is not prevalent many times during the film, but it is useful and adds to the dramatic or triumphant tone, depending on the scene.  Sound in general is used well, in general often serving as a transitional device between scenes.

This film is rated R, solely for language, otherwise it would have been G or something.  There is one major part where Colin Firth swears continuously for a little bit, managing to fit in a large amount of cursing.  As it turns out when George is angry and cursing, he does not stutter.  This scene is not only quite funny, and I am assuming quite memorable for people, but also shows the audience a little bit more about the dynamic character.  I wouldn't advice taking small children to see this movie, and if you must then close their ears before it is too late.

So I assume that most people knew how this movie was going to end, that's understandable, but that won't hinder any enjoyment of the film.  The dialogue and everything is just so wonderful and the story, at least I thought so anyway, was interesting.  Also, for those of you who think the plot of "The King's Speech" is boring, then don't judge a book my its cover.  True, the subject matter is slow at times, that's just the nature of the plot and real life occurrence.  However, the film is never boring and the script and acting combine to form something entertaining, maybe not to everyone, but for people who appreciate well made film.  

4 out of 4 stars...It's definitely getting a Best Picture nomination, among many others.  "The King's Speech" is well acted and well made in every regard.  It is a beautiful looking film and quite entertaining.

-Joseph Sbrilli

True Grit (2010)

"True Grit," the most recent adaptation of the novel, of the same name, is written, directed, and produced by two wonderful filmmakers, Joel and Ethan Coen (aka the Coen Brothers).  The film stars Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Hailee Steinfeld, in her first film role.

First, and foremost, I have not read the novel, but the Coen's version is superior to the 1969 version, starring John Wayne, for reasons I will go into later.

Mattie Ross' (Hailee Steinfeld) father is murdered by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin).  Naturally, he ran off so they don't hang him.  However, Mattie would much prefer Chaney get hanged for murdering her father, so she enlists the help of Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and La Beouf (Matt Damon) to find the murdering scoundrel and have him executed.  

The acting in this new adaption of "True Grit" is immensely better than the 1969 version.  John Wayne was not much of an actor, essentially playing some variation of the same role, so it's a little weird that he won an Oscar for playing the original Rooster Cogburn.  Jeff Bridges on the other hand, is phenomenal, then again I don't expect anything less from him.  Once he put on that eyepatch he became Rooster Cogburn, a gruff, hard drinking, extraordinarily successful United States Marshall.  "True Grit" also proves that Bridges plays a convincing drunk.  I'm just glad the Coen Brothers brought Jeff Bridges back after working with him 12 years ago, on "The Big Lebowski." Jeff Bridges has great chemistry with the entire cast, which I will go into later.  Hailee Steinfeld is immensely better than Kim Darby in the original, despite the fact she is only 14 years old.  Whereas Darby came off as annoying and just not that great of an actress, Steinfeld plays the part of Mattie, perfectly.  She is stubborn, determined, independent, and more than holds her own against such talents as Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both of whom I absolutely love.  This brings us to Matt Damon, who is hilarious in this movie and provides much of the comic relief.  He is extremely talented, no matter the genre.  I just really enjoyed his buffoon of a character.  Also, he has some funny scenes with Jeff Bridges.  Matt Damon was also better than Glen Campbell.  I'm pretty sure Glen Campbell was a country singer who should have never ventured into acting.  Lastly, Josh Brolin's role was not that substantial, especially compared to the other three. He gets little screen time and I was just confused about how he could be murderer, he didn't come off as someone who could pull a murder off properly.

The cinematography is what I have come to expect from the Coen Brothers.  It is truly beautiful and I loved it.  They have a great cinematographer and hopefully they never change.  Attractive outdoor shots are everywhere in this movie.  Naturally you also have some wide shots of people engaging in gunfire, among other fun western activities.  The coloring is very dull, with a lot of browns, green, beige, etc.  This, along with the set design, or real locations, I'm not positive, helped give it the look of a western taking place in the 1800s.  The original was so bright it just screamed technicolor, or something and it was truly blinding.  Dull, dark colors were way more effective and I am proud of the Coen's for realizing that.

The score was not overpowering, but it was there, and added to the action and drama.  Quite frequently I didn't even notice it was there, which means I am either deaf and oblivious or the wonderful Coen brothers didn't think it was necessary to have a lot of score.  This was way better than the score in the original, that was prominent, but didn't really add to to movie.  It even felt out of place or just cliched. 

The new film started with narration from a grown Maddie and ended with a flash forward, again with a grown Maddie.  I think I liked this better than Glen Campbell singing in the beginning of the original and John Wayne galloping away into a freeze frame at the end.  

Several scenes, including Maddie falling into a snake pit, coming across Chaney near the river, and courtroom scene near the beginning came directly from the first film, and I am assuming the book as well.  There was also a decent amount of the same dialogue in both films.  But, of course the Coen Brother's version is better in every way, not just acting, although that is a major area.  

Thankfully the new film was 1 hour and 50 minutes...the perfect time for a movie.  Even that started to feel a bit long, maybe just because the nature of the plot is a little on the slow side.  The original was over 2 hours long, which I didn't appreciate, because it didn't make the movie any better and it got obnoxious.  They could have cut out tons.  Luckily the Coen's were smart and cut the running time.

The Coen Brothers amaze me.  They are so incredibly hard working and have made a quality film a year for the past four years.  I love how they make their films as a team and how they have complete control over every aspect of it.  There films are known for being dark, often funny, and including a great cast, script, and cinematography.  "True Grit" wasn't as dark as their other ones, which hopefully means more people will be willing see it.  Great acting, story, and cinematography, make "True Grit" another successful Coen Brother's film. 3 out of 4 stars...mainly because I saw "Black Swan" before this and there have been a couple Coen Brother's films that I have liked more.   

-Joseph Sbrilli 

Black Swan

"Black Swan" was directed by Darren Aronofsky ("The Wrestler").  The cast includes Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, and Winona Ryder.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), is a talented ballerina who wants to play the role of the Swan Queen, in Swan Lake.  In order to play the part perfectly, she needs to convincing become both the White and the Black Swans.  She has the ability to do the White Swan, but the Black Swan will take a great deal more effort.  Nina gets the position, and starts going through massive, often psychological changes and fantasies, as she becomes fully immersed in becoming the Black Swan.  The friendship, turned rivalry between Nina and a new ballerina, Lily (Mila Kunis) adds to the insanity and stress in Nina's life.  Vincent Cassel, is the ballet director, Barbara Hershey is Nina's mother, and Winona Ryder is Beth MacIntyre, the ballerina who retires and is replaced with Nina.  This film is much more complex, than this synopsis is.  It is a hard to explain, without giving away tons of information, so I will leave it at that.

The cast is phenomenal...each and every one of them, but I am only going to comment on a few of the actors...the rest you will just have to take my word for.  First and foremost, Natalie Portman is pretty much guaranteed a Best Actress Academy Award.  She is absolutely incredible in this film.  Nina starts off an an innocent, mild mannered ballerina, and by the end of the film is anything but.  Portman convincingly changes gradually, as "Black Swan" progresses.  She is incredibly tormented internally and allows herself to gets so involved in the ballet, that her dark shade emerges.  This is beautifully done by Natalie Portman, over the course of the film and is something you have to see to fully believe.  Mila Kunis, known for her roles on "That 70s Show" and "Family Guy" is becoming a film actress, and quite a good one at that.  I'm enjoying seeing her in a wide variety of films.  She is the perfect counterpart to Nina.  Finally, Barbara Hershey was well cast as Nina's mother.  She loves Nina and yet has enormous expectations of her and has huge control over her life, probably due to the fact that Nina's mother used to be a ballerina, until Nina was born.  Barbara Hershey and Natalie Portman have some great scenes together that show the levels of the relationship, some more positive then others.

The cinematography is impressive and one of the many highlights of "Black Swan."  The lighting is phenomenal and puts emphasis on the ballet scenes as well as the overall dark tone that the film has.  The camera work is also done successfully.  Many times the camera follows characters from behind.  Also, there are a lot of great close-ups to show the vivid emotions on the actors faces.  One scene, with particular memorable filming was near the beginning where Nina is dancing, and as she spins around, the camera does as well, making for a whipping motion.

The score is incredible and could not have complimented the film any better.  Much of it is from the actual ballet, which for obvious reasons fits several scenes incredibly nicely.  It sounds like its being played by an orchestra, which just adds power to the scenes.  At other times the music adds suspense and intensity to the film, since it is in fact a psychological thriller, despite it being about a ballet.  Then occasionally both music types mix together for a beautiful experience for you ears, to go with the excellent cinematography.

This movie proves that 1 hour and 50 minutes is the perfect running time for a movie.  The filmmakers and everyone involved with making this work of art, packed in so much great talent, storytelling, suspense, visuals, sound, etc, that it is truly astounding.  The pacing was perfect and boredom will never, ever set in...and if it does then there is something seriously wrong.

I feel like I am obligated to mention a lesbian sex scene that occurs between Nina and Lily.  I was not a fan and looked away for the entire scene and would advise the entire human race to do the same.  I know it's there...I don't have to see it...however I still had to hear it...I was not a fan of that either.  There are a couple more scenes that remind you that it is indeed an R rated movie, so be careful who you watch it with.

Well, it has come to my attention that this is a pretty mediocre review and I apologize.  In my defense It is getting late and my memory is horrible, so I was struggling to remember specific things to comment on.  However, this film is way better than the above review may lead you to believe.  It is absolutely incredible.  It is so much more than a story about a girl who is in a famous ballet.  The characters are dynamic and the suspense, genuine.  Natalie Portman is amazing and will soon have an Oscar on her mantle.  It's impossible to imagine someone putting the same kind of power and emotion into that performance.  It's a perfect movie and I cannot wait to rent it or own it, since I can only assume how much I missed.  Films like this just get better with repeat viewings.  4 out of 4 stars...maybe more...filmmaking at its best.  

-Joseph Sbrilli

Tron: Legacy

Hollywood seems to have an obsession with remaking everything from the 80's. Old TV shows, cartoons and the occasional movie sequel over twenty years later. I feel that this is the product of a new batch of Hollywood executives who grew up in the 80's who all of a sudden had a nostalgia spree after watching an episode of VH1's I Love The 80's. I can only hope that we won't have to suffer through a live action version of "Thundercats."

Anyways, "Tron: Legacy" is the sequel to the original "Tron" that came out in 1982. A movie whose graphics would make "Tron: Legacy's" target demographic pee their pants at the absolute terribleness of it. In the original Tron, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) was sucked into the world of the computer, where programs exist in human form and carry out their functions in a sped up time frame. Kevin Flynn comes out of the computer world, founds the company ENCOM, and bases all of its financial success on an arcade game he developed from the computer world's gladiator like games. In "Legacy" Kevin Flynn gets trapped inside the computer by a program he created  called CLU (Also Jeff Bridges) which stands for Computer...Linear...Uranium or something. I never really found out. His son, Sam Flynn (Garret Hedlund) after assuming his dad has been dead for like fifteen years accidentally gets sucked into the computer world and has to find a way for both of them to get out.

When watching movies I tend to base the quality of the film on a simple question: What in the world is going on? If I can't answer the question it probably wasn't a very good movie. I have no idea what was going on in this film. Why do computer programs take the form of humans and play ultimate death frisbee? What are isometric algorithms? Does Sam realize that he fell in love with a computer program? Well, we can't blame him on that one, Olivia Wilde is very, very pretty.

"Tron" is a beautiful movie. I didn't see it in 3D but I was still very impressed. The colors were vibrant and it gave the film a very good feel to it. The light bike races and the high speed air chase were beautifully rendered. "Tron" also succeeds on an audio level. Every sound was a new, wonderful experience and the soundtrack by Daft Punk was incredible, I highly recommend it. Any movie that has a Daft Punk cameo should be way better than this.

Newcomer Garrett Hedlund is actually one of the bright points in this film. His acting was very good and his little quips within the film provided much needed comic relief. Sam is thrust into an ultimate death frisbee game with a program that decides to pull out TWO ultimate death frisbees and Sam remarks, "That can't be legal." Sadly, to my disappointment one of the worst parts of the film is Jeff "You're messing with my Zen man!" Bridges. He is funneling too much of his Big Lebowski character and "The Men Who Stare At Goats" character. Stop trying to be a hippy Mr. Bridges. Be the badass lawman from "True Grit." Coincidentally one of the best portions of the film is the other Jeff Bridges. In the creepiest yet most interesting way imaginable they made Jeff Bridges younger. I couldn't turn away from the younger Jeff Bridges. The face and mannerisms were perfectly filmed and rendered. In some cases it got weird and fake but overall it was a very good attempt and I know it will be used in the future.

Very good visuals and an incredible soundtrack can't save a plot or script that gives the audience brain freeze. Tack that on to a movie that is a half hour too long and you've got yourself a sad, beautiful dud.


2 out of 4 stars

-Christopher O'Connell

Roman Holiday: A Quick Review

"Roman Holiday," is a romantic comedy, released in 1953, and written and directed by William Wyler.  It starred Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, and Eddie Albert.  It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, winning three, including a Best Actress Award for Audrey Hepburn, in her first lead role in a film.  Not a bad way to start off a career in Hollywood.

 Hepburn plays Princess Ann.  No one is quite sure what country she is the princess of exactly, but luckily that doesn't affect the plot at all.  She is traveling around Europe and while in Rome, she decides all of her royal responsibilities are too stressful so she opts to wander around Rome by herself.  Luckily, Joe Bradley (Peck), a reporter, finds her on a bench that night.  Naturally, they take a liking to one another, because I am reviewing a romantic comedy here.  So off they go on a day full of fun and Italian cafes, motorcycle rides, and relationships blossoming faster than the speed of light.  Eddie Albert plays Irving, a photographer friend of Joe.

Normally romantic comedies make me literally want to vomit everywhere...absolutely everywhere.  They are one of the worst genres ever: cheesy, sappy, hormonal, unoriginal, annoying, repulsive, predictable, unfunny, etc.  And almost all of them in recent memory have included Sarah Jessica Parker, Drew Barrymore, or Jennifer Aniston.  Yes, we know you guys have miniscule range as actresses, thanks a lot...  Then every so often you get a incredibly quality romantic comedy in the vein of "When Harry Met Sally..." and "Moonstruck."  As far as older, classic romantic comedies go "Roman Holiday" is quite a good one...and makes me want to see some more.

True, the plot line is not original, that's just the nature of the genre, or of movies in general for that manner...since every movie follows one of about only 10 plot lines.  However, the two leads are great.  Audrey Hepburn and Gregory Peck are Hollywood legends and in "Roman Holiday" they had believable, natural chemisry with one another that was enjoyable to watch.  It helped that they were given dialogue, that while not always being laugh out loud funny, was well written and  succeeded in moving the plot along.  It just made interactions between the characters fun to watch.

Besides the attractive leads, Rome would be another huge draw of this movie.  This film was the first American film to be completely shot in Rome.  This probably goes without saying, that Rome is a beautiful place.  However, "Roman Holiday," once again proves this.  There are beautifully shots all around Rome, many of them outside, that just add to the cinematography in the film.  Also, it's completely filmed in black and white, adding to the classic, romantic feel of the movie.

If you like old, classic movies, romantic comedies, or any of the actors, then by all means check out "Roman Holiday."  It's an enjoyable, well made/acted movie, with one of my favorite actresses, and it doesn't end as most romantic comedies normally do.

3 1/2 out of 4 stars

-Joseph Sbrilli

Wrongfully Accused: A Quick Review

"Wrongfully Accused" is yet another, in the massively long list of spoofs starring Leslie Nielsen, who sadly passed away a couple weeks ago.  This time around "The Fugitive" gets parodied, with Nielsen playing Ryan Harrison, a famous violinist who is framed for a murder committed by a one-armed, one-eyed, and one legged man...yep...this movie is that ridiculous.  But naturally, he is "wrongfully accused," or else the title of the movie would be a lie. "Wrongfully Accused" has an endless stream of one liners and sight gags, basically what the movie viewing public had come to expect from Leslie Nielsen, after his hilarious role in "Airplane!" Most of the sight gags and spoofs are hilarious.  One that stands out, spoofs the train scene in "The Fugitive," where obviously the train starts following Leslie Nielsen through the woods.  Another great scene was the ever popular parody of the crop dusting scene from "North by Northwest."  This probably goes without saying, but this movie is absolutely brainless and ridiculous.  If you have seen "The Fugitive" or love Leslie Nielsen, you will find some enjoyment in this movie.  However, "The Naked Gun" will always be my favorite Lesie Nielsen movie, as it is absolutely hilarious from start to finish, had a phenomenal cast and almost every single joke was successful on some level.

-Joseph Sbrilli

Burlesque

"Burlesque" was written and directed by Steven Antin.  Before I heard of this movie, I has no idea who that was, so I'm assuming most people who read this have no idea as well...but I thought I would mention him anyway.  The cast is led by the wonderful, talented entertainment icon, (this is a fact, and not simply my opinion) Cher.  The rest of the cast includes Christina Aguilera (in her movie debut), Stanley Tucci, Kristen Bell, Julianne Hough, Cam Gigandet, among others.

The plot has been done in some way approximately 80,000 times since the invention of the moving picture.  However, I will tell you the plot anyway. Ali Rose (Christina Aguilera) works at a diner in some mid-western town.  She decides this is unbelievably boring and ridiculous and that she is way to talented and beautiful to put up with that crap.  She takes an insanely long bus ride to Los Angeles and finds herself in the Burlesque Lounge, a burlesque theater, owned by Tess (Cher), that is in danger of closely down.  Luckily Ali Rose is there and talent just flows from her pores and people love her voice and dancing skills.  This is quite a cliched movie so of course you got to throw in a love interest (Cam Gigandet), among other unimaginative things.  Stanley Tucci plays the gay stage manager and Tess' best friend, Sean.  The other three girls are also dancers.  One's a drunk, one's pregnant, it's a fun little dysfunctional surrogate family.

Let's start with the negative aspects of this film.  Yes, you may be thinking this is going to be the worst movie of all time...but that distinction goes to "Year One," so you're automatically wrong about "Burlesque". If you hate musicals, anyone in the cast, or fun things in general, then by all means stop reading this and do something else.  The script and dialogue is absolutely horrendous.  I mean just because you are a flamboyant gay man does not mean you automatically can write a good musical...that is a stereotype.  I could make a list of the horrible lines in the movie, but it would really take too much time.  Sometimes you cringe hearing the lines and other times you just make a confused face because you wonder if you heard wrong.  No, you are not mistaken the script for "Burlesque is campy at best and horrifying at worst. And like I said before, this plot is overdone, and originality is not a popular or welcome idea here.  I needed to get that rant out of the way, so that there are no misunderstandings or misinterpretations.  Below is a brief example of some dialogue, if you don't believe me, and this is just from the trailer. 

Sean:So, is Ali short for anything? 
Ali Rose: Oh, yeah, it's short for Alice. 
Sean: Alice, hm? Well, welcome to Wonderland.

This probably goes without saying, but there's a lot of skin in this movie.  Take a look at the poster/title one more time.  However, it is not graphic and is well within the confines of the wonderful PG-13 rating.  I however would not let a 13 year old watch this...that just seems like a poor decision.

I actually really enjoyed "Burlesque."  Naturally, I had to overlook the terrible dialogue.  Occasionally there was a funny line, but unfortunately it was all to infrequent.  Every single ounce of energy and thought went into designing the elaborate sets, costumes, and most importantly the impressive, elaborate dance numbers.  The dance numbers are phenomenal and the only reason this movie exists.  The weak plot merely ties all of the dances together.  I bet the choreographer had a friggin field day with this.  Also, there is so much glitter and other sparkling things on costumes and everywhere that it would literally give Bob Mackie, Cher's flamboyantly gay costume designer, a heart attack.

The cinematography is also quite good.  The lighting, set designs, and camera work are all well done.  All of these things add to the energetic mood of the movie.  There's lots of quick editing and everything.  It looks just like what you would expect from a live show.  Or so I assume because I haven't actually experienced a burlesque show, because I have a moral conscience.  

The cast is also good.  It's Cher's first lead role in 11 years and she is great.  Unfortunately she only gets two songs, "Welcome to Burlesque" and "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me."  I would have preferred she have a couple more since she is Cher and all.  However those are among the best songs in the movie (the movie has a very strong soundtrack overall).  And "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me" is wonderful and written by the nice lady who wrote, "If I Could Turn Back Time."  Cher's power ballad in "Burlesque" is full of emotion (as it turns out Cher is a very talented crier), like a good power ballad should be.  She has great chemestry with the cast, mainly Stanley Tucci.  They play off each other well throughout the movie.  Everyone tries so hard to be a good actor in here, they have so little to work with, though.  Although I enjoyed Cher's performance in "Burlesque," it is absolutely nothing compared to her Oscar winning role in "Moonstruck" from 1987.  That movie is phenomenal and I highly recommend it.  I just needed to get some of my love for Cher out of my system.  Christina Aguilera actually was not a bad actress at all.  Of course her role required little actually acting, since she sings for a living and I assume has danced in music videos.  She came across as pretty natural though and I did not cringe or get mad at her once.  She dominates the soundtrack with some covers and some new songs for "Burlesque."  I had never heard her sing before the movie and I was quite impressed.  She's incredibly talented and has a powerful voice.  I really don't feel like talking about the rest of the cast.  They were good though, but it was really Christina Aguilera's show, so the other girls kind of get lost in the background eventually.  One more comment...Christina Aguilera singing part of "Diamond's Are a Girl's Best Friend"...incredible.

"Burlesque" is kind of similar to "Chicago" in some ways, except it is so incredibly inferior and weak when you compare the two that it is insane.  "Chicago" is a beautiful film and well-made in every single regard.  I also highly recommend that one as well.

So, hopefully no one has judged me for seeing "Burlesque."  I happen to love Cher (with every fiber of my being) and musicals, so it seemed like the natural choice to go see it.  The movie is not of high quality, obviously.  But it was not painful at all to watch.  The musical numbers were phenomenal thanks to Cher (an incredible entertainer for the past 45 years in this wonderful country of ours) and Christina Aguilera and the entire movie is just a fun two hours of life, if you happen to be into musicals and everything.  Just don't think too much about the dialogue.  2 out of 4 stars...

-Joseph Sbrilli


P.S. Cher sings "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me," live...she is that talented and I was impressed.