Emma Roberts (niece of Julia) stars in the movie based on the popular book by Lois Duncan about an orphaned brother and sister who rescue stray dogs.
Andi (Roberts) and Bruce (Jake T. Austin) have bounced around from foster home to foster home since their parents died. No one wants them because they insist on staying together. They are currently living with nasty would-be rock stars (Lisa Kudrow and Kevin Dillon), who padlock the kitchen cupboards, as their sympathetic social worker Bernie (a terrific Don Cheadle) tries to find them a better situation. They do their best to take care of their beloved dog Friday, even if it means lying, cheating, and stealing.
When Friday runs into an abandoned hotel and meets up with some stray dogs, the kids decide to turn it into doggie heaven. Bruce, a mechanical whiz, rigs up machines to handle the dogs’ needs (eating, exercise, and going to the bathroom) and their fondest desires (racing to see who’s at the door, riding in cars, howling at the moon). With the help of some new friends from the pet store and the neighborhood, they round up all of the local strays, creating their own family of humans and canines. And that is when things start to get out of hand.
It goes on a little too long, but the kids are appealing, the contraptions are very funny, the dogs are adorable, and the affection, loyalty, and resilience of the characters is touching and inspiring. It’s a family treat.
Rated PG-13 for intense fight sequences, some sexuality and brief strong language
Profanity:
Brief stong language including a racial epithet
Alcohol/ Drugs:
Some drinking
Violence/ Scariness:
Very intense, brutal, and graphic street-fighting scenes with bare-knuckle, no-rules brawls
Diversity Issues:
Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:
April 27, 2009
Terrence Howard’s performance in “Fighting” is so bizarrely strange and awful that it occurred to me he might be hoping we didn’t realize it was him. Howard plays Harvey, a street hustler who discovers Shawn, a gifted young boxer (Channing Tatum) and sets up a series of underground, all-or-nothing, no-rules street fights. All Tatum has to do is punch, take punches, and mumble inarticulately whenever he sees the lovely Zulay (Zulay Valez). Howard has to pontificate, hide his money, confess to having been badly treated by his former partners, and ask Shawn to take a dive. Neither one manages to pull it off.
The film does have two things going for it. First is its conceit of multi-million dollar underground organizations that promote illegal street boxing (and the betting thereon) from behind hidden doors under the baseball hat racks in tiny little souvenir stores. That is the only logical explanation I have ever seen for the persistence of those shops, which never seem to have any customers. The second is the marvelous Altagracia Guzman as Zulay’s grandmother. As she did in the superb “Raising Victor Vargas,” Guzman is at once hilarious, endearing, and completely authentic. She provides moments of pure poetry. A small nod to the Foley artist, as well. The sound effects for all the whams and bashes may be cartoony — you almost expect Wile E. Coyote to show up with a package from Acme — but they are entertaining.
But the rest of the film is just dumb and dull. I think the screenplay is punchdrunk. Shawn needs money. He likes to fight. So, fight #1 he surprises everyone. Shawn is hiding something. Fight #2 is against a really big guy. He surprises everyone again, except for the audience. Then there are a few more fights, some old scores to settle, some revelations, some reactions to the revelations (I understand and sympathize! I am disappointed and betrayed! Both!) and everyone goes home. Kidding! The big, big fight is yet to come and as they like to say in movie tag lines, this time it’s personal.
It takes some serious effort to de-star and de-actor Howard and Tatum, but director-co-author Dito Montiel manages. This fight film needs to stay down for the count.
All of Shakespeare’s plays have been filmed, many more than once. Some of my favorites are:
1. Twelfth Night A shipwreck survivor disguises herself as a man and gets involved in many mix-ups as she finds herself falling for her boss and being fallen for by the woman he has asked her to woo on his behalf.
2. A Midsummer Night’s Dream An all-star cast appears in Shakespeare’s merriest romantic comedy, with the entanglements of three romantic couples and a little fairy dust.
3. The Taming of the Shrew Famously bombastic couple Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor play famously bombastic couple Petruchio and Kate in this raucous battle of the sexes. It is not only the shrew who is tamed.
4. Henry V Kenneth Branaugh’s fierce version of one of Shakespeare’s most thrillingly heroic stories is brilliantly done — and a lot of fun to compare with Laurence Olivier’s very different WWII-era version.
4. Hamlet Mel Gibson stars in one of several great versions of the play about the conflicted Danish prince.
6. The Merchant of Venice Al Pacino plays Shylock in the story of a money-lender driven to revenge by the defection of his daughter. Lynn Collins is luminous as the heroine Portia.
7. As You Like It Another woman-disguised-as-a-man story and another lovers-in-the-forest story — but this time transplanted by the film-makers to Japan in a very colorful production with a radiant Bryce Dallas Howard as Rosalind.
8. Macbeth Orson Welles’ version of the Scottish play is arresting and provocative.
9. The Tempest I’m still waiting for a worthy version of my favorite Shakespeare play, but until that happens, this version of the story of the shipwreck survivors on an island with a sorcerer and his daughter is worth seeing.
10. Shakespeare in Love This multi-award winner makes no pretense of historical accuracy but it is wise, exciting, and ravishingly romantic.
Steve Lopez thought maybe he would get a column out of the homeless man who was playing a violin with only two strings. He did get a column, and then more, and then a book, a friend, a lot of complications, an education, and a cause. The man he saw on the street was Nathaniel Ayers. The book is called The Soloist: A Lost Dream, an Unlikely Friendship, and the Redemptive Power of Music. And now the story of Lopez and Ayers is a movie starring Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Foxx.
I spoke to Lopez in a little coffee shop on Capitol Hill, just before his meeting with Hill staff to talk about mental health policy.
Why does our society do so poorly in helping people who are mentally ill?
There is a “There but for the grace of God” aspect to it, “This could have been me.” It is so easy to look past somebody, to wrap yourself in the generalizations and stereotypes — they might all be dangerous, they might all be capable of lashing out. But it is not a decision. These are our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters. As you go through this population you see that mental illness does not discriminate on the basis of race or income. It is cruel and unrelenting but people can be helped.
What do you hope to accomplish with this book and movie?
I want people to ask, “How does this exist in American society?” The mentally ill are shoved off into this human corral, out of sight, out of mind. Would we do this with cancer or muscular dystrophy? The answer is clearly no. The reason places like Skid Row exist is the stigma of mental illness. I hope this story shines a light on that and addresses some public policy issues.
Tell me about Nathaniel Ayers.
He was not typical but relatively normal. He grew up in Cleveland. A woman recently brought me a photo of him when he was very young, before the breakdown, just charming. You see the photo before the fall, there’s such hope in his eyes, a great future in front of him, passion for music, a great kid in a good family with a mother who had him mind his manners and go to piano class and get good grades, He gets whacked with this just as his career is about to take off. He was a former classmate of Yo Yo Ma.
How aware is he of his illness? Enough to help in his treatment?
Nathaniel has insight issues. There are times when he is very much aware of his own condition and times when he is not. In some ways he has it made. He found out his purpose in life and has everything he needs.
What have you learned from him?
I found him on the street and wanted to help him get him out of his situation. My life was hectic and frantic. He forced me to reconsider the definitions of success and happiness. In some ways this is a story about a man who has lost everything but has a purpose in life that those of us who are considered successful would envy. A change comes over him when he is with the music. He is more coherent and sane. It could be the science and math of it — he sees and hears things we don’t and it is hard to process all the signals, but the notes are in the same place they have been for 200 years. The world can be so terrifying for people who have schizophrenia. So you build a cocoon, a tin foil hat, or something. In Nathaniel’s case he will do his scrawlings. In that safe cocoon of his, music is the medicine, it is what keeps him whole.
I don’t think “What a wonderful life,” I just think most people do not have his purpose, joy, and passion. For me, journalism had become such a negative experience because we sit around newsrooms grousing about the good old days. Seeing Nathaniel made me realize I do not want to spend the last days of my career grousing about what used to be. I heard about an opening in California for a media person for mental health services, thought about doing that, and then decided I could find my purpose by continuing to write. I realize I’m working on the story of my life. It is not only the human drama but he’s helping me and giving me a chance to shine a light on our public policy failures. I am a storyteller, and that is my passion, equal to Nathaniel’s. It would be foolish to give it up. There are other ways to tell stories, and this new movie is one of them. So now I still write but I savor it a little bit more knowing it is what I chose to do. Nathaniel has made me feel much more grateful and devoted.
What were your disappointments or frustrations? In the book you talk about how you felt when he lashed out at you.
I felt very conflicted when despite my best efforts the condition was more powerful, bigger, more relentless than I was. It wasn’t Nathaniel, it was the condition. But how much patience do you have? I understand how families throw their hands up. You ask, “Can I sacrifice all this time for no guarantee of making a difference?” I know and admire and love him too much to turn back. Recovery is not linear, you slide a lot. Nathaniel has been in an apartment for three years. He has a girlfriend, he comes to concerts. Before, he didn’t consider himself worthy enough to see a concert. He would say, “People should not have to sit next to me.” But he now goes himself sometimes. That growth in him is pretty remarkable. Partly it is a friend handing him a lifeline, partly his own courage.
What is it people most misunderstand about mental illness?
They think, “We offered help and they didn’t want it” or “They can go to a shelter.” They do not realize how many challenges and psychological hurdles mentally ill people face. They have a fear of rules, a fear of having to be more social, a fear of being ostracized. Nathaniel feared a return to the world in which he had snapped. All of the places he played on the street were really noisy. He said, “The city is my orchestra.” With the noise, it was impossible for him to hear his mistakes. He did not want to leave the place he used to play because he said the statue of Beethoven would be alone. We got him a bust of Beethoven for his apartment so he could still keep Beethoven company.
What kind of recommendations are you on Capitol Hill to talk about today?
One of my heroes and mentors, Sister Mary Scullion, co-founded Project Home in Philadelphia. They have taken over abandoned neighborhoods and rehabbed the houses. They have turned lost neighborhoods into anchors of the community. We have Project 50, survey teams with clipboards find the 50 neediest and most desperate and chronically ill people and give them wraparound services, coordinating health care, housing, everything. One year into it, 88 percent are still in housing. It is a double tragedy. People are on the streets and we know what works and can bring them in. Not only is this the humane thing to do, it is the cost-effectrive thing to do.
More than 30 years after he resigned from office, Richard M. Nixon has transcended politics and history and become epic. He has been portrayed on film by Anthony Hopkins, the man who won an Oscar playing Hannibal the Cannibal. And his trip to China has been the subject of an opera, the art form most suited for larger-than-life stories of melodrama and scope. Nixon is like a Shakespearean character, the ability and ambition and the tragic flaws of Richard III, Lear, or Othello.
No one work of art or history will ever contain this man of extraordinary contradictions, but in one of this year’s best films, based on the Tony award-winning play, writer Peter Morgan, director Ron Howard, and actors Frank Langella and Michael Sheen take a pivotal moment in Nixon’s life and make it into a gripping story of the craving of two very different men for power and acceptance and how it plays into a contest of wit and will that becomes a larger story of accountability and meaning.
Richard Nixon was all but exiled to his house on the ocean in San Clemente following his resignation from the Presidency in 1974, relegated to working on his memoirs and finding excuses not to play golf. British broadcaster David Frost was also in a kind of an exile following cancellation of his New York-based talk show, relegated to lightweight celebrity interviews and presiding over televised stunts. Both were desperate for a way to get back into a position of influence. Frost proposed a series of interviews, even though he had no background as a journalist or historian. And Nixon accepted, in part because Frost had not background as a journalist or historian and in part because he would get paid $600,000 and a percentage of the profits. Negotiated by uber-agent Swifty Lazar (a shrewd Toby Jones) and widely criticized as “checkbook journalism,” the payment may have been unorthodox but it was most likely one of the most important factors in eliciting the unprecedented level of candor from the former President, not because of the incentives but because it shifted the balance of power from the subject to the interviewer.
It was also a stunning example of the precise conflict at the heart of so many of Nixon’s failures — his desperate need for approval. He accepted the interview as a way to try to regain his reputation as an elder statesman and remind America of his accomplishments and value. But once again, as it did in 1960 in the first televised Presidential debate, he was defeated by television, but what a character refers to as the power of the close-up. In yet another of this film’s infinite regression of paradoxes, the close-up that most exposes Nixon comes closest to creating sympathy for him. It is one thing to read about the evasions and cover-ups and corruption. It is another to see his face, the desperation, the soul-destroying awareness of how far he was from what he wanted to be.
Staged like a boxing match between the aging champ and the upstart, Howard and Morgan show us the combatants in training, sparring, retreating to their corners for some splashes of water, and then back into it, each going for the knock-out punch. They manage to create sympathy for both men without any shyness about their flaws. Both have some monstrous qualities but neither is a monster.
Sheen and Langella, after months performing together on stage, fully inhabit the roles and are exquisitely attuned to each other. Langella has the more showy character, but Sheen is every bit as precise. Watch the way he orders his lunch. In a millisecond he conveys all of his skills and all of his vulnerabilities. Even in the middle of an important conversation with his producer he stops and gives his full attention to the person behind the counter at the cafeteria and he orders in a way that perfectly demonstrates his charm, his showy self-deprecation, and his need to be noticed and approved of by every person on the planet.
And then there is Nixon, that infinitely interesting jumble of contradictions. Langella shows us his glimmers of self-awareness that cannot add up to meaningful insight. Morgan has taken the privilege of a writer to make it truthful without being accurate in every detail. For one thing, it has better dialogue. Morgan’s “The Queen” was another story of politics, celebrity, history, and conflict between two strong public characters (the younger one played by Michael Sheen) . As he did there, his selection of the elements of the story he wants to highlight and explore allows him to make this men not just historical figures but symbols of duality and contradiction and ultimately to deliver some over-arching messages about what it means to be human.