Curt’s Corner is a periodic movie review written by Curt Burbach of Mesa, Arizona.

 Invincible

This is the true story of a part-time bar tender that attends open try-outs for the Philadelphia Eagles in 1976 and actually makes the team. This film was very tastefully done. Mark Wahlberg plays the lead role, and both he and the supporting cast do an admirable job by not over acting.

This film is about a local Philly guy, training in the streets for an athletic contest, as he rises from a meaningless life to one of success as seen in the Rocky movies. But unlike Rocky, this one is different, because it’s not just about the hero. Our Invincible hero isn’t necessarily competing for himself (although it starts out that way), but rather for his friends and the citizens of Philadelphia as they are in the middle of economic recession. One can’t help but reminisce about how important the Steelers were to the citizens of Pittsburgh during the same time frame.

I enjoyed how well the set director replicated the back-street row-housing of South Philly during the mid 70’s. Replicating the real NFL players and coaches from that era was also very realistically done. It helps to be an NFL fan to thoroughly enjoy this one.

            As much as I admire how authentic and well this film was made, I still can’t ignore the fact that it wasn’t hugely compelling. But, to be fair, I don’t know what they could have done to “gas it up” without making it seem cheesy as it is a true story. So, thank you for not making a cheesy football movie – but it was still just above average and gets 2 ½ bones out of four.

The Illusionist

(Released: Sept. 1, 2006)

I thought this was a pretty cool movie. The story was intriguing and full of mystery, while the acting and filming were top-notch.

Edward Norton plays an Austrian-born illusionist during the turn of the last century, and I just loved how suave and confident his character is. In addition, Paul Giamatti fulfills his supporting role very well, as he usually does, because he’s such a good character actor. I also very much appreciate the authenticity of the culture and political positioning conducive to the setting that writer and director Neil Burger created. I think this would make a very good novel to read.

I love a film that incites conversation afterward, and encourages the viewer to watch it again. And, that is what this film does. It’s not a huge blockbuster, but I do think that it is a good film and deserves three bones.

Little Miss Sunshine

(limited release: July 26, 2006)

This movie was as depressing as it was funny – which I appreciated very much. It’s about a slightly dysfunctional family (aren’t we all?) making a road trip from Albuquerque to California and all the hardships in between. And, one word comes to mind as I think of it – bizarre!

Writer Michael Arndt employs a unique blend of tragedy, drama and comedy. Whereas, most comedies have a certain ongoing humorous flair to them, Little Miss Sunshine is more of a tragic-drama that breaks into funny lines, situations and scenes from time to time. But, here’s the kicker, when the story turns funny, it’s normally very funny – and that no doubt is because of the seriousness of the characters and storyline that the viewer had become acquainted to up to that point. I know, it sounds confusing. This is why I say the film is bizarre, because the story swings from tragedy to comedy and back again very, very well.

Veteran actor Alan Arkin turns in an outstanding supporting performance. I had to chuckle when I saw this 45-year film veteran portraying an undignified, vulgar old man. But, he did it wonderfully!

Greg Kinnear (Invincible, The Matador, We Were Soldiers), Steve Carell (The 40-Year Old Virgin, The Office) and Toni Collette (In Her Shoes, The Sixth Sense) round out the cast of adult players, and do a splendid job.

I recommend this film, but I also fully acknowledge that’s it’s not for everyone. Also, you could easily wait for it to come out on DVD. I give it three bones, and call it good due to the acting, unique writing and directing.

Hollywoodland

(Release date: Sept. 8, 2006)

This is a fictional story that takes place in parallel to the actual events surrounding the mysterious death of actor George Reeves, who portrays Superman in the 1950’s television show. Although the police ruled his death as a suicide, conspiracy advocates have always suspected foul-play due to some unexplained factors.

I thought the story was somewhat interesting. In most conspiracy theory movies, the writer exhibits a single conclusion based on interpreted evidence. But in Hollywoodland, we are presented with several possible explanations as to how Mr. Reeves might have actually died. And, that is what makes this film a little different.

I found the acting and set direction to be quite adequate. Adrian Brody does a fine job of portraying a fictitious private investigator, while Ben Affleck plays the real George Reeves. Diane Lane and Bob Hoskins provide decent supporting roles, but there’s still nothing to “write home about” here.

I give this film 2 ½ bones for being an above average display of accurate historical information blended with a tasteful touch of theoretical conclusion. Wait for it on disc.

*** (As seen on DVD) ***

The New World

(Limited release: Dec 25, 2005)

Set in Virginia in 1607, this is the story of, not only the founding of Jamestown, but the love story that ensues between Captain John Smith and Pocahontas. And this is where I felt a little bit duped – because based on the title and the movie trailer, I wasn’t expecting this to be such a love story. Well, let it be known folks – this is 100% a love story. And, there’s nothing wrong with that, if they had just advertised it as such. I just don’t like the deceitfulness of the movie studios, because they have once again created a script chalked full of action and romance purposely to sell tickets to couples.

Oh, and by the way, just for the record – here is a quote from Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia); “There is no suggestion in any of the historical records that Smith and Pocahontas were lovers. This romantic version of the story appears only in fictionalized versions of their relationship. According to Smith, when she met him again in London, Pocahontas called him "father".” This is also coupled with the fact that Pocahontas was only 10-12 years old when she met Smith and supposedly saved his life. So, this tells me that the script was adapted to suit the tastes of the American public and the movie producers. So be it.

Okay, having said that and thereby having it out of the way, I must say – that if you’re going to portray a love story, then this is a very good example of how it should be done. The story was low in dialog and strong in filming, acting and emotion – and that alone salvages the script. The set direction and costume design also deserve mention as they were very good.

Even though the love story was tastefully portrayed, I still found it to be only slightly moving. Therefore, I rate this film as above average and award it 2 ½ bones.

 Back to Home