["MarkB"]Actually, CINDERELLA MAN was a critical success. Many critics thought it would have been up for a Best Picture nomination if the box office hadn't been so weak.
Not in most of Europe. In the UK it was one of the worst reviewed films of the year, rating 2/5 from most critics.
Well, apparently the critics in the States thought differently. Just curious: What did you think of it?
Mark
Here's my opinion (for what it's worth)- the problem I personally had with it was the same problem I had with A BEAUTIFUL MIND- I just don't like Howard's "glossy" storytelling. In the case of CM he just painted this picture of a man who was so perfect- there was no real character flaw in him that gave him any dimension. The film had too much of a "looking through rose-colored glasses" feel to it (nostalgic feel) and I don't particularly care for that. I also loathe Rene Zellweger and feel she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag (unpout your lips for Pete's sake and stop squinting!!).
I like "imperfect" protagonists. Compare his film to MILLION DOLLAR BABIES (which had several flaws but was better to me) and look at the protagonist in that one (Clint Eastwood's character, as the story was, imo, really about him)- Eastwood's character had dimension. Crowe's character did not- it was too "glossy" or nostalgic. That's Howard's general style in his latter work (and maybe even his whole body of work), and I just don't care for it. He's not bad- I just don't like it.
Thomas Newman's score was very good. I agree that the film was released at a very bad time (it had no chance), and now that I think about it I do remember that the critics here in the US were very kind to it. So since my statement a few quotes back was based on the US reviews, I have to admit I was wrong on that point....oops!
mkaroly wrote:Here's my opinion (for what it's worth)- the problem I personally had with it was the same problem I had with A BEAUTIFUL MIND- I just don't like Howard's "glossy" storytelling. In the case of CM he just painted this picture of a man who was so perfect- there was no real character flaw in him that gave him any dimension. The film had too much of a "looking through rose-colored glasses" feel to it (nostalgic feel) and I don't particularly care for that. I also loathe Rene Zellweger and feel she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag (unpout your lips for Pete's sake and stop squinting!!).
I like "imperfect" protagonists. Compare his film to MILLION DOLLAR BABIES (which had several flaws but was better to me) and look at the protagonist in that one (Clint Eastwood's character, as the story was, imo, really about him)- Eastwood's character had dimension. Crowe's character did not- it was too "glossy" or nostalgic. That's Howard's general style in his latter work (and maybe even his whole body of work), and I just don't care for it. He's not bad- I just don't like it.
Thomas Newman's score was very good. I agree that the film was released at a very bad time (it had no chance), and now that I think about it I do remember that the critics here in the US were very kind to it. So since my statement a few quotes back was based on the US reviews, I have to admit I was wrong on that point....oops!
I would agree with you that Crowe's character had few flaws, but that didn't bother me. I would disagree, however, that the film had a "looking through rose-colored glasses" feel to it ( or nostalgic feel). I came away with a greater appreciation of just what people went through during the Depression. Sure didn't look like fun to me.
If you are commenting more about Howard's directorial style (camera movement, etc.), then I can understand where you might think it's a bit too slick for the accompanying story.
As for your comments about Renee Zellweger... I think she's a good actress, but I've often made the same statements regarding her appearance (the "squint" in particular).
I didn't see it - it just looked pretty awful to me, and everything I heard from people who did see it seemed to confirm it. Outside the US it generally got slated for its lack of realism, rose-tinted historical inaccuracies, abandoned subplots, weak performances and, most consistently, for constantly hitting the audience over the head with the Stars and Stripes rather than getting on with the boxing story, which might explain why it played well with Us critics but badly everywhere else. Certainly the overseas business was even worse than the US, so word-of-mouth couldn't have been good.
Here's my opinion (for what it's worth)- the problem I personally had with it was the same problem I had with A BEAUTIFUL MIND- I just don't like Howard's "glossy" storytelling. In the case of CM he just painted this picture of a man who was so perfect- there was no real character flaw in him that gave him any dimension. The film had too much of a "looking through rose-colored glasses" feel to it (nostalgic feel) and I don't particularly care for that. I also loathe Rene Zellweger and feel she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag (unpout your lips for Pete's sake and stop squinting!!).
Joanne and I went to see A BEAUTIFUL MIND and nearly laughed out loud several times. I just felt the whole movie was a little "off"...Crowe was too over-the-top for my tastes and the whole Paul Bettany thing was such a transparent filmmaking device...I just didn't buy it, nor the squabbling scenes with Crowe and Connelly. Felt like a glossy network TV Movie with a James Horner score (and not a very good one at that, either, with Charlotte Church's fluttering, yodeling vocals!).
I was commenting mostly on Howard's directorial style. Remember that scene in BONNIE AND CLYDE when they were having that picnic with their families? The film was purposefully "glossed over" as if implying a "romantic" look back at that era.....or it looked like one of those old photos on someone's piano or wall. I just had the same feeling with CM- this is hard to explain since I don't know exactly what terminology to use. Anyway, it was the "here's this great person in horrid circumstances and look at how romantic this is as he overcomes all the odds, etc. " style of directing/storytelling that bugged me.
But please keep in mind that I have never particularly cared for Howard's films. The only one I remember liking to any degree was SPLASH. I disliked A BEAUTIFUL MIND and feel that was his worst.
Unfortunately for Ron Howard, DA VINCI CODE is not just his second failure in a row as far as critical reaction.
First, DA VINCI CODE has pretty much been drubbed by every critic I have seen. I am personally waiting to read the book and then I'll think about whether I want to see the film or not.
Second, CINDERELLA MAN was slammed by a lot of critics for a lot of the usual reasons, most of them stated in the prior comments here. Essentially, Howard took an interesting story about a boxer during the Depression and turned it into a feel-good nostalgia epic. That's not necessarily a bad thing if you're looking for a good time with your family at the movies. But if you were looking for any kind of subtlety or complexity, you weren't going to find it there.
Third, THE MISSING was both panned by critics and ignored by audiences. It was thought of as his attempt to make a more complex movie, but it didn't really work.
Fourth, A BEAUTIFUL MIND got awards, but as the reaction earlier in this thread indicates, not everyone went for it. I mentioned the reviews I had seen which lamented that a more mature storyteller hadn't been given the Nash tale.
Fifth, I won't even go into HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS.
As someone pointed out earlier, though, his movies tend to be critic-proof. People like him, and families like going to his movies. You're not liable to see something like VIDEODROME coming from Ron Howard. My only problem with his films is that I need a bit more substance.
