My review of "Leatherheads" is in the Chicago Sun-Times and on RogerEbert.com. (Also: "Shelter.") Here's an excerpt:
The script is less than effervescent, but Clooney and his cast are game. Although "Leatherheads" probably has fewer dull moments than your average NFL contest, sometimes you wonder if the clock is still ticking or if somebody's called a timeout. A scene will end and, just as you're moving on to the next one, you may find yourself wondering: Why was that there?
Yet there's always something interesting to notice: a face, a throwaway visual joke, the way the winter rain on a window contributes to the tone of a scene, or the sight of the muscular 1920s Chicago skyline in the distance behind the ballfield.
Even before the opening credits montage is over, Clooney demonstrates the fleetness of his comedic footwork -- getting a better laugh from a cow and a ball than you'd have any right to hope for. He knows how to compose a shot (the retro short-focus camerawork by Newton Thomas Sigel immediately puts you in a classic Hollywood frame of mind) and how to cut comedy so that it doesn't cramp the actors' style.
Best of all are the picture's abundant grace notes. Clooney's a team player, and his generosity toward his collaborators, as an actor and a director, shines throughout the movie....
You'll probably remember the image of a hulking high schooler named Big Gus (Keith Loneker) standing and beaming at a train station. And Belinda (Heather Goldenhersh), the archetypal flapper with a mouth of potty. And a moment in a speakeasy, after a long night and a big brawl, in which soldiers and football players gather drunkenly around the piano (manned by score composer Randy Newman himself) to sing "Over There."
In the final chorus, the camera drifts over to a Bulldog with a buzz-cut named Curly (Matt Bushnell), who finishes the song by himself in a gentle, lingering closeup -- one that reminds you of why we go to the movies.
8 Comments
I'm confused. What does this have to do with Funny Games or No Country for Old Men?
Ah, I'm just giving you hell because I saw some of the "complaints" in the comments of your last post. I have an incredible weakness for period pieces of the early twentieth century. I'll see them just to see the art direction. I don't know why that is. I do know it's led to major disappointments many times over and probably will again but I'll see this (on DVD that is) just because of when it takes place. And besides, you make it sound as if it's not all bad.
Jim, I loved your review. I can't wait to see this tonight after work, as I'm sure it's everything I hoped it would be (screwball, Clooney and witty.) I'll reply again once I've seen it and once there's a discussion about it going on - if that should happen.
I want this one to be good. I'm not convinced it will be, but your words here give me some hope. I can't read your full review until I see it, but for now this is enough.
Everyone seems to love Clooney and your "team player" comment I think is part of the reason why. Whether his image is real or not, he gives the impression of being a generous, unassuming, intelligent guy with an ample sense of humor about himself. He's almost bulletproof.
Even in the recent Variety item about his credit dispute with the WGA over Leatherheads, the writer bent over backwards to cast Clooney in the most positive light.
Interesting in a culture that seems to take such great joy at tearing down the celebrities it creates, Clooney manages to rise above it.
Ok, I'm not sure what my original point was going to be before this turned into some kind of creepy Clooney love letter...
I have a question regarding a passage from your review of Shelter:
"Today we don't use the anachronistic term "made-for-TV movie" much..."
Why don't we, and why is it anachronistic?
I saw this over the weekend, and I think you're spot-on, Jim. I do have a quick question, however. I work in a movie theater, and we're traditionally pretty slow right now, but LEATHERHEADS and SHINE A LIGHT just opened here in South Carolina. Neither film is doing particularly well. Do you think that, specifically in the case of the former, that it being a "period" film or based on an outdated style has to do with its unimpressive show at the box office? I just don't see how these two movies aren't getting some love. Our largest show for Scorsese's film had 20 people in it!
I still want to see this, even if it is just to see how bad they screwed it up.
Jim,
I enjoyed the film almost completely. Not perfect, but certainly good enough. I'm jotting my own review in my down time. Probably finish it up this evening.
Now what you don't want to see is "Run, Fat Boy, Run". Yuck. My one comment that stands out to me is to all of the people that didn't like "There Will Be Blood" because Plainview wasn't a likeable character or "NCFOM" because Chigurh had no arc, or don't like Segel because he's a "shlub"...I put it to these people to try and sit through "RFBR" and they'll see their worst nightmares come to life and realize that the three listed above aren't so bad. I think it really just comes down to people wanting to speak out and be heard so they take the completely opposite point of view. It's strange that "Leatherheads" has gotten a 50/50 split at rottentomatoes. I can't believe a person wouldn't at least enjoy the film.
Wrote my review. One thing I never felt was that a scene seemed unecessary to me. In a story like this the story (footbal) is less important than how the characters bounce off each other and end up driving the story forward. From that point of view everything felt necessary. It was a little disappointing though in my opinion to see one of the three main characters become a footnote in the film as it neared its end.
Leave a comment